[Bug middle-end/38074] [4.4 Regression] missed inlining since IRA merge on Core2 Duo

["jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-11-28 11:06 -------
On x86_64-linux at -O3 with channel.f90 I get:
Deciding on smaller functions:
Considering inline candidate ddx.
Considering inline candidate ddy.

Considering ddx with 77 insns
 to be inlined into sw
 Estimated growth after inlined into all callees is +49 insns.
 Estimated badness is 16177, frequency 0.00.
 inline_failed:call is unlikely and code size would grow.

Considering ddy with 77 insns
 to be inlined into sw
 Estimated growth after inlined into all callees is +49 insns.
 Estimated badness is 16177, frequency 0.00.
 inline_failed:call is unlikely and code size would grow.

Considering ddy with 77 insns
 to be inlined into sw
 Estimated growth after inlined into all callees is +49 insns.
 Estimated badness is 16177, frequency 0.00.
 inline_failed:call is unlikely and code size would grow.

Considering ddx with 77 insns
 to be inlined into sw
 Estimated growth after inlined into all callees is +49 insns.
 Estimated badness is 16177, frequency 0.00.
 inline_failed:call is unlikely and code size would grow.

So I guess the question is why is this considered unlikely, given:
integer,parameter::             NSTEPS=6480
...
do istep=1,NSTEPS
    time = istep*dt

    ! ------ interior calculations ------ !

    dudx = ddx(u(:,:,mid))
    dvdy = ddy(v(:,:,mid))
    dhdx = ddx(h(:,:,mid))
    dhdy = ddy(h(:,:,mid))
...
end do


-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2008-11-28 11:06:47
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38074