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 53E683858D33; Fri, 22 Dec 2023 19:59:29 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 53E683858D33
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1703275169;
	bh=Hy/m+KW0h8lZbNfKneodNpNfUYets8q9gmN+NpD0wNY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=iXmdXOS3GWtHcYisrhvmIJT1SzhZAdsF2qUkaLh6n2KjaPqGoRVg15pZ5FkSlSY4r
	 hUzEn1r9xRAPVqvZ2OyQP955sBu4n5ch+vbsR8NqbIFxRO0W451GqdNkt/nOIDwmPf
	 MapxdgeYdvQWy/5JxAIEgiY6QLyC+6woKoUS/Yeg=
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 19:59:28 +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: cc
Message-ID: <bug-113087-4-uXcQgHOI4E@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

Vineet Gupta <vineetg at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |vineetg at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #13 from Vineet Gupta <vineetg at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #12)
> (In reply to Patrick O'Neill from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Patrick O'Neill from comment #10)
> > > I've kicked off 2 spec runs (zvl 128 and 256) using r14-6765-g4d9e0f3=
f211.
> > > I'll let you know the results when they finish.
> >=20
> > My terminal crashed - so these are partial results:
> > zvl256: 3 runtime failures
> > 531.deepsjeng
> > ???
> > ???
> >=20
> > zvl128: 1 runtime failure
> > 527.cam4_r
> >=20
> > If I had to guess I would say the 2 ??? fails are the existing 521/549.
>=20
> You mean those 2 cases are still failing?
> Do you have any ideas to locate those FAIL and extract them as a simple c=
ase?

> zvl128 / no vl: 1 runtime failure
> 527.cam4_r

Yes this still remains. It is hard to debug (for me at least) as this is
fortran.

However this goes away if simple_vsetvl is used (with -Ofast for rest of
buiild) - using [1]

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-December/641342.html=