https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66462
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #16) > > Do you have a link to those problems? And no, please don't regress us for > > no > > reason at all, it's really easy to *not* regress this on double-double. > > As far as I am aware, the final version of the patch had no regressions for > any target, including PowerPC which I used the GCC compile farm to verify > (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg02567.html) That sounds great! > The patch ended up not getting committed because of questions around whether > integer operations were fast enough on all targets But floating point operations are *incorrect* (at least when SNaNs are enabled). > and on the latest > reviewer requesting a major change to the patch. Hrm. > At this time the patch had gone through 3 completely different > implementations (due to to every time having a different reviewer reviewing > it) and so a 4th rewrite was deemed not productive use of time. Could you please retry anyway? Maybe split the patch into smaller chunks, so it is easier to digest? (This also helps if anything regresses, to help pinpoint what caused that). Thanks!
