It means that in this case, the static compiler emitted code that could be further optimised, that's all. It doesn't mean that that's always the case, or that s

It means that in this case, the static compiler emitted code that could be further optimised, that's all. It doesn't mean that that's always the case, or that static compilers can't produce optimal code, or that either technique is "better" than the other. An easy example is code compiled for 386 running on a 586. The A->A compiler can use CPU features that weren't available to the 386. As with PGO you have branch prediction information that's not available to the static compiler. You can statically compile the dynamically linked dependencies, allowing inlining that wasn't previously available. On the other hand you have to do all of that. That takes warmup time just like a JIT. I think the road to enlightenment is letting go of phrasing like "is superior". There are lots of upsides and downsides to pretty much every technique.