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 9480D3857C64; Thu,  4 Jan 2024 16:44:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9480D3857C64
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1704386685;
	bh=OhIyJESB0Bm35kveoSaY5ZQusakTje3MjXH4LDIIPXA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=lKyDxvZnqSrI6lwoKwdzFXQPmCJH/IeRWEvpEfM32sdjwomKq3DfuHZ8hO9PvD+5C
	 SvyQKH4lubEJhD0MJUTNBUZyHXJqwdKOSQBeFmFBkLQEMNoPXpRuNhq/c34QCs/+eo
	 FwqQK1PD6eo3Sh4w8ZGZGhp3rP/Al33ExCo2+T/s=
From: "patrick at rivosinc dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/113206] [14] RISC-V rv64gcv vector: Runtime mismatch
 with rv64gc
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2024 16:44:43 +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: patrick at rivosinc 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-113206-4-6tMDtLXGDV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113206-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113206-4@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=3D113206

--- Comment #9 from Patrick O'Neill <patrick at rivosinc dot com> ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #8)
> It seems that we still didn't locate the real problem of failed SPEC you =
ran.
> Do you have any other ideas to locale the real problem ?
>=20
> Li Pan didn't locate the problem neither.

Using 4a0a8dc1b88408222b88e10278017189f6144602, the spec run failed on:
zvl128b (All runtime fails):
527.cam4 (Runtime)
531.deepsjeng (Runtime)
521.wrf (Runtime)
523.xalancbmk (Runtime)

zvl256b:
507.cactuBSSN (Runtime)
521.wrf (Build)
527.cam4 (Runtime)
531.deepsjeng (Runtime)
549.fotonik3d (Runtime)

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.=