http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47658
--- Comment #2 from Michał Walenciak <Kicer86 at gmail dot com> 2011-02-09 19:34:18 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > It works for me, what do you mean by "works" ?:) > the abstraction is completely eliminated by early inlining. > At -Os we do not inline E::foo2 into E::foo1 but that isn't abstraction and > it isn't easily visible that this is profitable. That results in the > -Os code being around 10% larger than -O2 code. and this imho is the problem. As -Os suggests, code should be as small as it's posiible. So i expect that if I use Os, the code will be the smallest that gcc can produce. However in this example I have to use -O2 or even -O3 to get the smallest code, and it's misleading.
