From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 9F3373858431; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 11:09:05 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9F3373858431
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1705662545;
	bh=m7XsXJbGE3MD+WqIzBVojD26qhWXOHGWnH0i4oGZmcA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=af7m9zVho0lmopHy/ltItzBE5JwLGG5xoyBXKSCg/SVscBxalcKhTMFB1vq6OpY/T
	 G3yM9/m0rWfddI3ijaHUOlfFFX4BKAfqhfBY33gCcFamtUN0cDliDg+6bb60GsJkN+
	 zUd7o+Tvqj8hhURrERsFVOk6nGhVXc9e7agiuPL4=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/113478] -Os does not inline single instruction function
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 11:09:04 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: ipa
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113478-4-SPLYYUUkN6@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113478-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113478-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113478

--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #2)
> Probably is_inexpensive_bulitin_p should return true here?

Possibly, at least when we know it doesn't expand to a libatomic call?  OTOH
even then a function just wrapping such call should probably be inlined,
so the question is whether the problem that

  _3 =3D &MEM[(const struct __atomic_base *)this_1(D)]._M_i;
                freq:1.00 size:  0 time:  0
  _4 =3D __atomic_load_1 (_3, 0);
                freq:1.00 size:  4 time: 13
  _5 =3D (char) _4;
                freq:1.00 size:  0 time:  0
  return _5;
                freq:1.00 size:  1 time:  2

is estimated as too big compared to the call calling the function
(OTOH a1.test () has no arguments while __atomic_load_1 has two).=