http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > Not sure I like their naming though, I'd say they should be type generic > builtins handled in the FEs depending on the first argument's type, so that > it works even for say __int128_t and similar. > > For the implementation, we'd need to find out how to represent it in the > GIMPLE IL (because the functions have two return values rather than just one > and return by reference would be very optimization unfriendly). For > expansion, we already handle this for ubsan (well, the signed +/-/* > overflow), so that could be just adjusted. If just source compatibility is asked for a functional implementation shouldn't be difficult.
