http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59258
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2) > Seems to work for the reduced test case but not for the big code - also > -fsanitize=addr can only detect a segfault. Hopefully, it can be reduced to > something small. Currently, it looks as if it could be a similar kind of > bug, which makes reducing difficult. Still not much success with reducing (~90 kB), but it seems to be due to -fsanitize=null. Except for staring at the -fsanitize=null code, I don't have any good idea how to debug this - valgrind and an -fsanitized=address instrumented GCC don't help. Do you have any suggestion? BTW: The 90kB code fails due to with a segfault for "cc1plus -fsanitize=null -Og -fsanitize=address" with 0x0000000000e7a877 in resolve_addr_in_expr (loc=0xb60f7fff8000c181) at ../../gcc/dwarf2out.c:22974 22974 switch (loc->dw_loc_opc) #1 0x0000000000e7c209 in resolve_addr (die=0x7ffff2704c80) at ../../gcc/dwarf2out.c:23203 23203 if (!resolve_addr_in_expr ((*curr)->expr)) (gdb) p *loc Cannot access memory at address 0xb60f7fff8000c181
