https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96394
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
so after Martin asked some good questions, it turns out this should probably be
avoided in ipa-prop, after all, as with, for example (untested):
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-prop.c b/gcc/ipa-prop.c
index b28c78eeab4..58ffedc20b1 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-prop.c
+++ b/gcc/ipa-prop.c
@@ -3787,11 +3787,12 @@ update_indirect_edges_after_inlining (struct
cgraph_edge *cs,
param_index = ici->param_index;
jfunc = ipa_get_ith_jump_func (top, param_index);
- cgraph_node *spec_target = NULL;
- /* FIXME: This may need updating for multiple calls. */
- if (ie->speculative)
- spec_target = ie->first_speculative_call_target ()->callee;
+ auto_vec<cgraph_node *, 4> spec_targets;
+ for (cgraph_edge *direct = ie->first_speculative_call_target ();
+ direct;
+ direct = direct->next_speculative_call_target ())
+ spec_targets.safe_push (direct->callee);
if (!opt_for_fn (node->decl, flag_indirect_inlining))
new_direct_edge = NULL;
@@ -3814,7 +3815,7 @@ update_indirect_edges_after_inlining (struct cgraph_edge
*cs,
/* If speculation was removed, then we need to do nothing. */
if (new_direct_edge && new_direct_edge != ie
- && new_direct_edge->callee == spec_target)
+ && spec_targets.contains (new_direct_edge->callee))
{
new_direct_edge->indirect_inlining_edge = 1;
top = IPA_EDGE_REF (cs);
