From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-366997-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 6408 invoked by alias); 2 Sep 2011 20:58:22 -0000
Received: (qmail 6398 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Sep 2011 20:58:22 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 20:58:08 +0000
From: "eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/50087] [C++0x] Weird optimization anomaly with constexpr
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 20:58:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-50087-4-yiGh3uiYmJ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-50087-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-50087-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-09/txt/msg00174.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50087

eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |eric-bugs at omnifarious
                   |                            |dot org

--- Comment #5 from eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org 2011-09-02 20:57:45 UTC ---
I thought that perhaps it was expected behavior. I still think it's a missed
optimization opportunity. A call of a constexpr function can clearly, in all
cases, be reduced to a constant expression if the arguments are also constant
expressions. So it seems like the optimizer should do this if it can.

But it isn't a 'bug' exactly, just more of a 'it could do this better'.