https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114531
--- Comment #15 from Rama Malladi <rvmallad at amazon dot com> --- Thanks for the comments and for giving us some history/ perspective. I agree with this statement, > Pushing up -O2 limits can make sense, but needs to be done carefully - > in longer term IMO we do not want to let -O2 binaries to grow faster > than their perofrmance. Sadly this figure is not that great. and hence this option was proposed to help the user explicitly enable it and get more performance gains w inlining in addtion to LTO. The initial description I posted had perf upside for individual SPEC cpu2017 Int rate benchmarks w LTO. Note that not all benchmarks benefit and indeed `500.perlbench_r` perf went down w code size increase. But some other benchmarks such as `502.gcc_r`, `523.xalancbmk_r`, `531.deepsjeng_r` and `541.leela_r` saw better performance. Customer applications such as Envoy saw higher performance with these inline parameters.
