http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60165
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #10) > Now, I agree that ideally, GCC should warn for your last testcase. But I > guess in that case inlining either doesn't happen or it happens too late, so > GCC only sees the first case. Actually it is the reverse, inlining happens earlier in this new testcase (the first example was recursive, which makes the inliner more conservative). > The analysis that GCC performs are predicated > on the transformations leading to better code, otherwise they are not > performed. A tool for static analysis will surely inline as much as it > could, not matter if the code is slower or larger, but this is not how GCC > works because GCC is not a tool for static analysis. Maybe we could have a wiki page explaining what options to tweak (inlining parameters, etc) for a compilation where you are only interested in warnings? (I had vaguely mentioned creating -Ow at some point, but that didn't seem such a good idea)
