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 BA5EC385841F; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:07:13 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BA5EC385841F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1712822833;
	bh=56V6qAwmz6pZk6ZUseAjALSPh8waiOyfpD6B9FDS2ig=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=G458oosnWHZi4wr0BgfyBzMQ92EVKmVftfBWxzOkZ27WcqYQdc6IpHRs5g/NIyJTJ
	 /sR/4PXWGK07IcjTM5Zg4+WoKJJ24D6lxENuDxs7ELL0KHlfsrCwGalXMGiiGZh3Ho
	 kJZ4nf3G18MiHwxpuIZhzv3H/PrnP3YfKly8kdR8=
From: "chfast at gmail dot com" <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: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:07:12 +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: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: chfast at gmail dot com
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-114452-4-nh9ur1j2Dj@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 #5 from Pawe=C5=82 Bylica <chfast at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #4)
> In this testcase all (well, both) functions referenced from the array
> are semantically equivalent which is recognized by ICF but making it
> be able to pass this information to the inliner would be
> non-trivial... and is this the common case worth optimizing for?

I reduced the original code to the array of two identical functions.
Originally, there weren't identical. I can update the test case if this make
more sense.=