https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88297
--- Comment #5 from michael.ploujnikov at oracle dot com --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > So before the patch we were just lucky, right? When seeing the patches I > wondered whether we instead want to add a clone_count member to cgraph_node > (which we could stream) and use that for the .NUM suffix. We alread have > it (sort-of) if we walk the clones list and do counting, right? But the root of the problem is that multiple different cgraph_nodes share the same name, so even if two or more nodes like that have counters == 0 we would get the same conflict. Unless it's always the case that the additional cgraph_nodes with the same decl name are made as copies of the original one and their counter values are copied as well - I'm not sure if things actually work like that, I'm just guessing...
