https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103227
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz --- > I like the idea of transformation phases better than putting > everything into tree-inline (and by extension ipa-param-manipulation) > but perhaps we have to do aggregate constant replacements there too? So the situation is that we inline call A->B (where both A and B are clones of the main function) and while we place uses of the constant parmater in A we miss replacement in B because transform is not run on it. I think proper solution here (discussed also few years ago) is to keep the optimization summaries and teach value numbering to look up the constant from the summary. We also have other situations where the existing transform pass fails to pattern match and this lets us to feed other info, like value ranges to the optimizer. We have open PR somwhere for this problem, right?
