https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114232
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Tue, 5 Mar 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114232 > > --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > Either change those too, or the splitter needs some variant what to do if > there > is a mismatch. > Though, optimize_size implies optimize_function_for_size_p (cfun), so if a > named pattern uses && optimize_size and the insn it splits into uses > optimize_function_for_size_p (cfun), it shouldn't fail. The other direction > is > not always true, optimize_function_for_size_p (cfun) can be true just because > the function > is cold, not just because it is -Os. I think optimize_function_for_size_p (cfun) isn't always true if optimize_size is since it looks at the function-specific setting of that flag, so you'd have to use opt_for_fn (cfun, optimize_size).
