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 7E0573858D33; Fri, 22 Dec 2023 23:36:41 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7E0573858D33
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1703288201;
	bh=+ZW4iIjaBYyUiOUbWFlW3PxiNWJRFzTCEs19sIpD90Q=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=sY6XXofsVbmBa5VtknRwU20gmv4lRD9P9VE2rRbx6Mr061/tA4aMY/Nf6qRK14tiU
	 QnQb1Fo/zCOdliCHtNOU9ZQ17tdX44Ep9u0vdkz/sBsIDs9mkUP8MmQMDG1h34JiJX
	 H4vEdoc093VYlZKr33jyrQmLB47Jtjts8deYUUHg=
From: "juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai" <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: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 23:36:41 +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: juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai
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-JTF8gRtrSD@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 #23 from JuzheZhong <juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai> ---
(In reply to palmer from comment #22)
> (In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #19)
> > (In reply to Vineet Gupta from comment #18)
> > > (In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #17)
> > > > PLCT told me they passed with zvl256b.
> > > >=20
> > > > I always run SPEC with FIXED-VLMAX since we always care about peak
> > > > performance
> > > > on our board.
> > >=20
> > > Sure we all have our preferred peak performance configs. But the comp=
iler
> > > needs to work for all vendors' configs. So as a test, can you try a s=
calable
> > > build run at your end to at least see if you can see those issues ?
> >=20
> > I am not able to build and test SPEC since I don't have QEMU and SPEC
> > environment.
>=20
> Sorry, I'm kind of confused here: you're saying you can't build/test SPEC,
> but then above saying you run SPEC.
>=20
> > I should ask my colleague to do that but they are quite busy with compa=
ny's
> > things and frankly I can't pull more resource on open source work from =
my
> > company.

I am sorry that my typo make you confused. I must say "we" instead of "I" :=
).

"We" is PLCT lab, my colleague, and Li Pan.

I just notice my careless writing, sometimes say "I", sometimes say "we".

Since I always ask some body do things I want to do.=