https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93008
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I just noticed this PR and wonder if there is anything to do on inliner side. It uses DECL_DECLARED_INLINE that was invented to distinguish between implicit inlines and explicit ones. So even if it would be bit misnamed it should mean "this is an inline hint for inliner", so I guess frontend needs to distinguish between constexpr and normal places where inline hint still means "inline more"? Inliner is really not on level to be able to completely ignore used inline hints without regressing various code. I made inline weaker for -O2 in GCC10 but for -O3 we still take it very seriously and I do not see way out of that: in many cases it is very hard to predict how much optimization will happen after inlining and a lot of code is carefully crafted under assumption that some specific inline happens (and a lot of such code is in C++)
