Ping ? Thanks, Kugan
> On 16 Feb 2026, at 11:40 am, Kugan Vivekanandarajah <[email protected]> > wrote: > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > Ping ? > > Thanks, > Kugan > >> On 21 Jan 2026, at 8:18 pm, Kugan Vivekanandarajah <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments >> Hi Honza, >> >>> On 13 Jan 2026, at 7:58 pm, Jan Hubicka <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments >>> >>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> The specualtive_id should be unique only within on speculative id block >>> which can be iterated by first_speculative_call_target and >>> next_speculative_call_target, so there is no need to walk the whole list >>> of edges >>> >> >> Please see the attached to patch which changes this. >> >> Bootstrap and regression testing are ongoing. Is this OK if no regression? >> >> Thanks, >> Kugan >> >> >> <0001-Use-next_speculative_call_target-in-get_next_specula.patch> >
