http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59967
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |missed-optimization
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2014-03-31
CC| |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Caused by r193246:
193246 hubicka /* If there is call on a hot path through the loop,
then
193246 hubicka there is most probably not much to optimize. */
193246 hubicka else if (size.num_non_pure_calls_on_hot_path)
138522 rguenth {
138522 rguenth if (dump_file && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS))
193246 hubicka fprintf (dump_file, "Not unrolling loop %d: "
193246 hubicka "contains call and code would grow.\n",
138522 rguenth loop->num);
138522 rguenth return false;
138522 rguenth }
so we conclude
size: 59-8, last_iteration: 52-5
Loop size: 59
Estimated size after unrolling: 269
Not unrolling loop 2: contains call and code would grow.
so it was disabled on purpose. Not sure if it's worth special-casing
self-recursive calls the same as pure/const ones.
