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 A8EF23858401; Thu,  7 Mar 2024 03:25:25 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A8EF23858401
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1709781925;
	bh=CPl+AKFZPGILbBWdssGI8Yu+N/i42Fsds6KG7VaJ+sY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=qmpymn5gq7CuCS9flQlZCYefVA3B+snMXGp5zwtyDZUEEeANIcmWD1UuyPEWbcuEh
	 Txv2J3fnxyUfljwbkigL9Rd5HJfU8L7vBgmuYR0/gLc6NbUY1BE+SYkzqTFg2xL4Y8
	 cxMyM+vZsIYdqcj+ztW3cGqj7McBrRX+GChS+0pI=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/114262] Over-inlining when optimizing for size with
 gnu_inline function
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2024 03:25:25 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: documentation
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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-114262-4-2DD0DNYuZp@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114262-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114262-4@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=3D114262

--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #4)=20
> The only difference between the C99 `extern inline` and C++ `extern inlin=
e`
> is that the C++ external definition is COMDAT.

Well not really. comdat changes heurstics here though. The reason being C++
inline functions are most likely smaller and should really be inlined. This=
 is
all heurstics of inlining and figuring out locally in the TU that it might =
not
be called in another TU or not.

Note GCC has not retuned its -Os heurstics for a long time because it has b=
een
decent enough for most folks and corner cases like this is almost never come
up.=