Fix ICE when inlining into function containing polymorphic call

[Jan Hubicka]

> Hi,
> 
> 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.ndzyxu6cn3jt3enu@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.

Honza

> 
> Martin