From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 1C2A9385841B; Tue,  9 Jan 2024 01:34:29 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1C2A9385841B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1704764070;
	bh=iRqC73JEaVrG52uZv3enWOJneNf0hmtxOnst4Bdi1nU=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=luHEs0g7NcrVsQpfJsO0dc1SOYAIVGk/XT9oyCgfO+w370qnjt7eK4BUQUIOacEsQ
	 kenYpdVn8v9AzIb/BL9q/DzgNR3wpk2Wl23OR7gKEwUeb6m2fGz2R+DwQ9vd5T3/ej
	 +5a7CNNBf1ilclZNFhpdGJP3a2NL7KPvOnYlrzlI=
From: "pan2.li at intel dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/113087] [14] RISC-V rv64gcv vector: Runtime mismatch
 with rv64gc
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2024 01:34:27 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pan2.li at intel dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113087-4-ItTCqqVRnQ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113087-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113087-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113087

--- Comment #29 from Li Pan <pan2.li at intel dot com> ---
(In reply to Patrick O'Neill from comment #27)
> Linking the discussion/plan here since more interested people are CCd her=
e.
>=20
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113206#c9
> Using 4a0a8dc1b88408222b88e10278017189f6144602, the spec run failed on:
> zvl128b (All runtime fails):
> 527.cam4 (Runtime)
> 531.deepsjeng (Runtime)
> 521.wrf (Runtime)
> 523.xalancbmk (Runtime)
>=20
> zvl256b:
> 507.cactuBSSN (Runtime)
> 521.wrf (Build)
> 527.cam4 (Runtime)
> 531.deepsjeng (Runtime)
> 549.fotonik3d (Runtime)
>=20
> With that info I think the next steps are:
> 1. Triage the zvl256b 521.wrf build failure
> 2. Bisect the newly-failing testcases
> 3. Finish triaging the remaining testcases the fuzzer found
> 4. Attempt to manually reduce cam4 for zvl128b (since it seems to have the
> fastest build+runtime)
> 5. Attempt to manually reduce other fails.

Hi Patrick,

Thanks a lot for the summary. Could you please help to share some more
information about the spec2017 for above data? Like data set (test, train, =
or
ref), the enviornment (qemu, spike, or hardware) as well as the spec config
file. Just would like to make sure we are on the same page for the failures=
 and
reproducible from others.

Thanks again. Pan=