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 C592F3857C67; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 05:38:14 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C592F3857C67
From: "christophe.leroy at csgroup dot eu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/97445] Some fonctions marked static inline in Linux kernel
 are not inlined
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 05:38:14 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: christophe.leroy at csgroup dot eu
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-97445-4-4LFonoEPHn@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-97445-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-97445-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 05:38:14 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D97445

--- Comment #47 from Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy at csgroup dot eu> =
---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #46)
> (In reply to Christophe Leroy from comment #43)
> > int g(int x)
> > {
> > 	return __builtin_clz(0);
> > }
> >=20
> > Gives
> >=20
> > 00000018 <g>:
> >   18:	38 60 00 20 	li      r3,32
> >   1c:	4e 80 00 20 	blr
>=20
> That is because rs6000 has
>=20
> /* The cntlzw and cntlzd instructions return 32 and 64 for input of zero.=
  */
> #define CLZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO(MODE, VALUE) \
>   ((VALUE) =3D GET_MODE_BITSIZE (MODE), 2)
>=20
> This says that at RTL level and in the optabs, clz of 0 *is* defined,
> for rs6000.  But the builtin is not valid with an arg of 0!

I opened bug #97503 for that=