https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66462
--- Comment #16 from Tamar Christina <tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > 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) 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. 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.
