https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66462
--- Comment #18 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> --- On Wed, 4 Sep 2019, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > 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) > > The patch ended up not getting committed because of questions around whether > integer operations were fast enough on all targets and on the latest reviewer > requesting a major change to the patch. It *was* committed (r249005). Then reverted (r249050). <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg00565.html> reported "a large number of new failures on AIX, including compiler ICEs". I noted it caused ICEs building glibc for powerpc. Rainer noted Solaris/SPARC was affected <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg00602.html>. Other issues were also reported in that thread. Clearly these problems need to be fixed before it can go back in. That doesn't mean it needs to cover all cases. But it needs to avoid introducing regressions (whether ICEs or wrong code), and existing cases that are expanded inline need to stay expanded inline (whether with the old or the new expansion), and the limited subset of cases where it's OK to take the address of some such built-in functions with the possibility of out-of-line expansion need to stay working in the cases where they currently work.
