[Bug ipa/81465] [8 Regression] ICE in estimate_edge_growth at gcc/ipa-inline.h:85 on s390x target

["hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81465

--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> ---
> _ZN12_GLOBAL__N_11bC2Ev/1 ({anonymous}::b::b()) @0x2b14a0ce4170
>   Type: function definition analyzed
>   Visibility: prevailing_def_ironly artificial
>   References: 
>   Referring: 
>   Function {anonymous}::b::b()/1 is inline copy in c::e::e()/4
>   Availability: local
>   First run: 0
>   Function flags: body local
>   Called by: c::e::e()/4 (inlined) (1.00 per call) (can throw external) 
>   Calls: {anonymous}::a::a()/7 (1.00 per call) (can throw external) 
> during GIMPLE pass: einline
> ice.i:12:7: internal compiler error: verify_cgraph_node failed
> 0x979eb3 cgraph_node::verify_node()
>         ../../gcc/cgraph.c:3537
> 0x96e15c symtab_node::verify()
>         ../../gcc/symtab.c:1204
> 0xe241b9 expand_call_inline
>         ../../gcc/tree-inline.c:4581
> 0xe27184 gimple_expand_calls_inline
>         ../../gcc/tree-inline.c:4954
> 0xe27184 optimize_inline_calls(tree_node*)
>         ../../gcc/tree-inline.c:5094
> 0x1556a39 early_inliner(function*)
>         ../../gcc/ipa-inline.c:2727
> 
> So do you prefer changing the comdat group when inlining or original version of
> verifier is preferred?

I would say that we have loops walking all symbols in given comdat group that
are not
really expecting to trip over inline clones, so it may be easier to
consistently take
inline clones out of the comdat group rather than consistently to put them in.

Honza