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 8D26C3858C66; Fri, 22 Dec 2023 23:12:25 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8D26C3858C66
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1703286745;
	bh=2Vf0ryd2iTG0eJJOq57m7hvX5R6FKmkL2MKnoTGbSrQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=uztz7zA5dOatoeilB0MTn3sojD46+8QckBj3wSGuYOt2N3SKwNl+2CiGL65+WbNCl
	 +mBVeTnX+2dtzkV2NKqQsxOggqcDds4raf2czpvbBdqT1F3aMkkr4GgngdZXQy6mdA
	 o9VNFW+LfH72cT010Od72sG11XIl3te4bKkIh8Zg=
From: "vineetg at gcc dot gnu.org" <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 23:12:25 +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: vineetg at gcc dot gnu.org
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-imBVYdcALo@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 #18 from Vineet Gupta <vineetg at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(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.

Sure we all have our preferred peak performance configs. But the compiler n=
eeds
to work for all vendors' configs. So as a test, can you try a scalable build
run at your end to at least see if you can see those issues ?=