On Thu, Nov 14 2019, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 13 2019, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> > Hi, >> > the testcase causes inline context cache to go out of sync because I >> > forgot to update used flags of parameters in one path of >> > update_indirect_edges_after_inlining. >> > >> > While debugging it I also added better consistency check to >> > ipa-inline-analysis and turned ipa-inline test from ifdef to -fchecking. >> > This uncovered yet another missed upate in recursive inliner. >> > >> > Bootstrapped/regtested x86_64-linux, comitted. >> > >> > PR c++/92421 >> > * ipa-prop.c (update_indirect_edges_after_inlining): >> > Mark parameter as used. >> > * ipa-inline.c (recursive_inlining): Reset node cache >> > after inlining. >> > (inline_small_functions): Remove checking ifdef. >> > * ipa-inline-analysis.c (do_estimate_edge_time): Verify >> > cache consistency. >> > * g++.dg/torture/pr92421.C: New testcase. >> > Index: ipa-prop.c >> > =================================================================== >> > --- ipa-prop.c (revision 278151) >> > +++ ipa-prop.c (working copy) >> > @@ -3537,6 +3537,11 @@ update_indirect_edges_after_inlining (st >> > if (ici->polymorphic >> > && !ipa_get_jf_ancestor_type_preserved (jfunc)) >> > ici->vptr_changed = true; >> > + ipa_set_param_used_by_indirect_call (new_root_info, >> > + ici->param_index, true); >> > + if (ici->polymorphic) >> > + ipa_set_param_used_by_polymorphic_call (new_root_info, >> > + ici->param_index, true); >> > } >> >> >> >> Interesting, you have this exact hunk already in the patch introducing >> the new param flags (message id >> id:20191103224712.ndzyxu6cn3jt3...@kam.mff.cuni.cz or >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg00077.html). I did >> actually check it was there, even if only yesterday evening, but I did :-) >> >> And I can also see the code already in my Monday checkout (r278047). So >> I guess you must have actually removed it by accident in the meantime? > > Well, it is there twice - once for PASS_THROUGH and here for ANCESTOR. > But it is quite possible that I had both (since I also had verification > at the place when originally doing the patch) and lost it on way to > mainline. >
Oh, I see. That explains it then. Thanks, Martin
