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 85A453858408; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:41:19 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 85A453858408
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1711363279;
	bh=uYSLUyTHx1IVkkuQjQr+PqeaBYRp3f1VRA8mcWyAWy4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=kQNVq4dWiRvdmvliMukXycra7BhoM/hMf8kEc3jkM/jcV96iE31wO4g9x+iW6d1Rg
	 zO+0BBdtLp76Ik/r2mq3fQz5qkGJwCnWWtzPP+pelFO3fQQnbYw87X9k979iAu4zZP
	 Azfs7JbtlLpr8oCEOmF2D0yLExUKuWIonvWDrfbM=
From: "xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/114452] Functions invoked through compile-time
 table of function pointers not inlined
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:41:18 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: DUPLICATE
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-114452-4-iR4CU4bWvR@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114452-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114452-4@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=3D114452

--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Pawe=C5=82 Bylica from comment #2)
> I don't think this is related to lambdas. The following is also not
> optimized:
>=20
>=20
> using F =3D int (*)(int) noexcept;
>=20
> inline int impl(int x) noexcept { return x; }
>=20
> void test(int z[2]) noexcept {
>     static constexpr F fs[]{
>         impl,
>         impl,
>     };
>=20
>     for (int i =3D 0; i < 2; ++i) {
>         z[i] =3D fs[i](z[i]);
>     }
> }
>=20
> https://godbolt.org/z/9hPbzo4Px

The analysis of PR111573 says:

"So we fail to inline since ipa-prop fails to track the constant function
address.  I think this is really common in typical lambda function usage"

"fails to track the constant function address" applies for normal functions
too.=