On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 10:21 PM Kugan Vivekanandarajah <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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?
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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >
