Do C++ compilers perform compile-time optimizations on lambda closures?

Question

Suppose we have the following (nonsensical) code:

const int a = 0;
int c = 0;
for(int b = 0; b < 10000000; b++)
{
    if(a) c++;
    c += 7;
}

Answer 1

Looking at the assembly generated by gcc5.2 -O2 shows that the optimization does not happen when using std::function:

#include 

int main()
{
    const int a = 0;    
    std::function lambda = [a]()
    {
        int c = 0;
        for(int b = 0; b < 10000000; b++)
        {
            if(a) c++;
            c += 7;
        }
        return c;
    };

    return lambda();
}

compiles to some boilerplate and

    movl    (%rdi), %ecx
    movl    $10000000, %edx
    xorl    %eax, %eax
    .p2align 4,,10
    .p2align 3
.L3:
    cmpl    $1, %ecx
    sbbl    $-1, %eax
    addl    $7, %eax
    subl    $1, %edx
    jne .L3
    rep; ret

which is the loop you wanted to see optimized away. (Live) But if you actually use a lambda (and not an std::function), the optimization does happen:

int main()
{
    const int a = 0;    
    auto lambda = [a]()
    {
        int c = 0;
        for(int b = 0; b < 10000000; b++)
        {
            if(a) c++;
            c += 7;
        }
        return c;
    };

    return lambda();
}

compiles to

movl    $70000000, %eax
ret

i.e. the loop was removed completely. (Live)

Afaik, you can expect a lambda to have zero overhead, but std::function is different and comes with a cost (at least at the current state of the optimizers, although people apparently work on this), even if the code "inside the std::function" would have been optimized. (Take that with a grain of salt and try if in doubt, since this will probably vary between compilers and versions. std::functions overhead can certainly be optimized away.)

As @MarcGlisse correctly pointed out, clang3.6 performs the desired optimization (equivalent to the second case above) even with std::function. (Live)

Bonus edit, thanks to @MarkGlisse again: If the function that contains the std::function is not called main, the optimization happening with gcc5.2 is somewhere between gcc+main and clang, i.e. the function gets reduced to return 70000000; plus some extra code. (Live)

Bonus edit 2, this time mine: If you use -O3, gcc will, (for some reason) as explained in Marco's answer, optimize the std::function to

cmpl    $1, (%rdi)
sbbl    %eax, %eax
andl    $-10000000, %eax
addl    $80000000, %eax
ret

and keep the rest as in the not_main case. So I guess at the bottom of the line, one will just have to measure when using std::function.