Calling Function Overwrites Value - c++

Question

I have several configuration flags that I am implementing as structs. I create an object. I call a method of the object with a flag, which eventually triggers a comparison between two flags. However, by this time, one of the flags has been overwritten somehow.
To clarify, here's a VERY simplified version of the code that should illustrate what I'm seeing:
class flag_type { unsigned int flag; /*more stuff*/ };
flag_type FLAG1
flag_type FLAG2
class MyObject {
public:
void method1(const flag_type& flag_arg) {
//conditionals, and then:
const flag_type flag_args[2] = {flag_arg,flag_arg};
method2(flag_args);
}
void method2(const flag_type flag_args[2]) {
//conditionals, and then:
method3(flag_args[0]);
}
void method3(const flag_type& flag_arg) { //Actually in a superclass
//stuff
if (flag_arg==FLAG1) { /*stuff*/ }
//stuff
}
};
int main(int argc, const char* argv[]) {
//In some functions called by main:
MyObject* obj = new MyObject();
//Later in some other functions:
obj->method1(FLAG1);
}
With a debugger and print statements, I can confirm that both FLAG1 and flag_arg/flag_args are fine in both "method1" and "method2". However, when I get to method3, "FLAG1.flag" has been corrupted, so the comparison fails.
Now, although I'm usually stellar about not doing it, and it passes MSVC's static code analysis on strictest settings, this to me looks like the behavior of a buffer overrun.
I haven't found any such error by looking, but of course one usually doesn't. My question isA: Am I screwing up somewhere else? I realize I'm not sharing any real code, but am I missing something already? This scheme worked before before I rewrote a large portion of the code.
B: Is there an easier way than picking through the code more carefully until I find it? The code is cross-platform, so I'm already setting it up to check with Valgrind on an Ubuntu box.

Answer 1

Thanks to those who tried to help. Though, it should be noted that the code was for clarification purposes only; I typed it from scratch to show generally was was happening; not to compile. In retrospect, I realize it wasn't fair to ask people to solve it on so little information--though my actual question "Is there an easier way than picking through the code more carefully" didn't really concern actually solving the problem--just how to approach it.
As to this question, on Ubuntu Linux, I got "stack smashing" which told me more or less where the problem occurred. Interestingly, the traceback for stack smashing was the most helpful. Long story short, it was an embarrassingly basic error; strcpy was overflowing (in the operators for ~, | and &, the flags have a debug string set this way). At least it wasn't me who wrote that code. Always use strncpy, people :P