https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118544
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- "loop unrolled 2 times" would be wrong, "loop unrolled using an unroll factor of two" might be OK. I suppose cunroll should report the loop was fully peeled. Note the unroll amount might be confusig when for example loop header copying causes the number of latch executions to decrease by one before we get to unroll. So - the current message is correct. Maybe there can be an improvement in reporting, but a change by itself might be confusing to users.
