------- Comment #7 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 14:54 ------- Concerning Mark's comment (I noticed only after committing the patch). I am not sure what exactly Mark has in mind - this situation is not actually dependend on inlining - easilly we might just have funcition with two loops, one initialization with large known bounds and other iterating as many times as the initialization one but without obvious bounds in it.
Also all the frequency estimates we have everywhere are guessed, so we almost never know so I don't see why dropping them in this specific case is good idea. Even the bad estimates we had before the patch was producing better code than no estimates at all (I've just tested on x86). I am keeping bug open for a moment so we can clarify the idea before forgetting abou it. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24487
