From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-104184-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 1352 invoked by alias); 18 Oct 2004 00:29:30 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 1343 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2004 00:29:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp3.fuse.net) (216.68.8.176)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Oct 2004 00:29:29 -0000
Received: from gx4.fuse.net ([66.42.135.201]) by smtp3.fuse.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.03.04 201-2131-111-106-20040729) with ESMTP
          id <20041018002925.OJJZ22310.smtp3.fuse.net@gx4.fuse.net>
          for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:29:25 -0400
Received: from dellpi.pinski.fam ([66.42.135.201]) by gx4.fuse.net
          (InterMail vG.1.00.00.00 201-2136-104-20040331) with ESMTP
          id <20041018002926.UDDC3628.gx4.fuse.net@dellpi.pinski.fam>;
          Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:29:26 -0400
Received: from [10.0.0.80] (zhivago.i.pinski.fam [10.0.0.80])
	by dellpi.pinski.fam (8.12.2/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i9I0TMVT027711;
	Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:29:23 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <877jposwsz.fsf@codesourcery.com>
References: <200410172348.i9HNmoX04480@bemr-lnx-002.cisco.com> <877jposwsz.fsf@codesourcery.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <C1C74ECB-209C-11D9-B4B8-000A95D692F4@physics.uc.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Eliot Dresselhaus <edressel@cisco.com>
From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
Subject: Re: bug w/ inline of inline?
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 07:40:00 -0000
To: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>
X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00682.txt.bz2


On Oct 17, 2004, at 8:18 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> Eliot Dresselhaus <edressel@cisco.com> writes:
>
>> In this example
>>
>>     static inline int f (int x) { return x + 1; }
>>
>>     static inline int g (int x, inline int f (int x))
>>     { return 1 + f (x); }
>>
>>     int h (int x)
>>     { return g (x, f); }
>>
>> is h supposed to optimize to return x + 2 or supposed to actually call
>> f.
>
> GCC is allowed to do either.  It would be good if it produced
> "return x + 2;"  Please file a missed-optimization bug report.

We have one already, PR 9079: <http://gcc.gnu.org/PR9079>.

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
a gcc bug master