Hi Andrew, > On 6 Jan 2026, at 7:10 pm, Andrew Pinski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > On Sun, Jan 4, 2026 at 11:11 PM Kugan Vivekanandarajah > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> [PR ipa/123383] shows in ICE speculative call sequence has speculative_id >> 256 out of range with LTO. >> This also shows up lot profile bootstrapping gcc. >> >> Fix by checking lto_stmt_uid in get_next_speculative_id as done in other >> places too. > > LGTM based on the previous similar fix (PR93318, r10-6074) where it > is mentioned that only one or the other will be set. So you need to > compare both. > It would be useful to add the (semi-big) testcase I added to the bug > report as a (semi) bigger LTO C++ example. > Thanks for the review. Attached patch adds the test case from the PR. Is this OK?
Thanks, Kugan > Thanks, > Andrew Pinski > >> >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> 2026-01-04 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <[email protected]> >> >> PR ipa/123383 >> * cgraph.cc (cgraph_edge::get_next_speculative_id): Check >> lto_stmt_uid in get_next_speculative_id. >> >> Is this OK? >> >> Thanks, >> Kugan >> >> >> >> >> >>
0001-PR-ipa-123383-v2-ICE-speculative-call-sequence-has-s.patch
Description: 0001-PR-ipa-123383-v2-ICE-speculative-call-sequence-has-s.patch
