https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452
--- Comment #7 from Paweł Bylica ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #6)
> (In reply to Paweł Bylica from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #4)
> > > In this testcase all (well, both) functions referenced from the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Paweł Bylica from comment #5)
> (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #4)
> > In this testcase all (well, both) functions referenced from the array
> > are semantically equivalent which is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452
--- Comment #5 from Paweł Bylica ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #4)
> In this testcase all (well, both) functions referenced from the array
> are semantically equivalent which is recognized by ICF but making it
> be able to pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Paweł Bylica from comment #2)
> I don't think this is related to lambdas. The following is also not
> optimized:
>
>
> using F = int (*)(int) noexcept;
>
> inline int impl(int x) noexcept {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452
--- Comment #2 from Paweł Bylica ---
I don't think this is related to lambdas. The following is also not optimized:
using F = int (*)(int) noexcept;
inline int impl(int x) noexcept { return x; }
void test(int z[2]) noexcept {
static
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
