https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114215
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed| |2024-03-03
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
checkedvector::value_type& checkedvector::operator[](size_type)/167 call is
unlikely and code size would grow
freq:1.00 loop depth: 0 size: 4 time: 13 callee size: 6 stack: 0
op1 is compile time invariant
If I had:
```
void test_demovector(checkedvector& vec, int x) noexcept
{
for(int i = 0; i < y; i++)
vec[i]=5;
}
```
Then GCC will inling operator[]:
checkedvector::value_type& checkedvector::operator[](size_type)/167 inlined
freq:8.09
Stack frame offset 0, callee self size 0
void __builtin_trap()/205 function body not available
freq:0.00 loop depth: 1 size: 1 time: 1
I am suspecting this is the right heurstic. Do you have real code where the
inlining does not happen at -Os/-Oz or you just looking at the code generation
with code that might be benchmarking things?
