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 A8B2E3857706; Thu, 21 Dec 2023 22:43:25 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A8B2E3857706
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1703198605;
	bh=8z6jghatOXxPl0tbv7BLKUDB9dvlnyE6bSmFiqzb7vo=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=NwSqfpyIA2Wyo8Ay3nnFvtapC5FvELPrFdv94gdT8qpMuHOpiePSl1aWwPhY+S9Wp
	 7tKtaUQQBOOmEqmWE+NhBbd9BkN/mORL8OkUw9qp09X7IA4F97AtQhdyhkm88WQDTH
	 gOYAo6TdeZZM1PTxTOvzIbzfRznCjL0JGNE+O+18=
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: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 22:43:24 +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-zmZmb5ZoOa@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 #12 from JuzheZhong <juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai> ---
(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-g4d9e0f3f2=
11.
> > 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.

You mean those 2 cases are still failing?
Do you have any ideas to locate those FAIL and extract them as a simple cas=
e?=