------- Comment #4 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-13 22:41 -------
The only thing "wrong" with the code from -O1 is that it didn't inline __ffs.
Since that function isn't explicitly marked inline, I don't see anything wrong
with that decision.
Given that adding "static inline" to the declaration of __ffs results in code
identical to that produced with -O2, I'm calling this not-a-bug.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WORKSFORME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44123
