From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 9187A3858C39; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 11:58:30 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9187A3858C39 From: "tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/103088] [12 regression] 500.perlbench from spec 2017 fails since r12-4698 Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 11:58:30 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 11:58:30 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103088 --- Comment #16 from Tamar Christina --- (In reply to Martin Li=C5=A1ka from comment #14) > > > Richi the configury bits you shared once upon a time had > > > -fno-unsafe-math-optimizations for 500.perlbench. Are there known is= sues with > > > this test for -ffast-math that we had -fno-unsafe-math-optimizations? > >=20 > > Indeed - interesting. I don't remember anything and I have originally > > copied this config from our testers which means iff then maybe > > Martin knows ... ;) >=20 > Yes, I can confirm we have=20 >=20 > EXTRA_OPTIMIZE =3D -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-unsafe-math-optimiza= tions >=20 > for perlbench benchmark. It's also mentioned in portability Issues: > https://www.spec.org/cpu2017/Docs/benchmarks/500.perlbench_r.html >=20 > ``` > 3. GCC -Ofast and unsafe math: Users of GCC's -Ofast option may encounter > problems with the test workload failing to validate. If you go to the run > directory and look at file test.out.mis, you may see output such as: > ... > ``` >=20 > So I would close this as invalid as it's a known limitation. I Disagree. Your text explicitly says "with the test workload failing to validate". this PR was about a new failure appearing with the ref workload. The spec portability section does not mention ref as ref used to work fine. I don't mind closing this as invalid, however this isn't a known limitation, it's a new limitation.=