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 C4AED38582B0; Tue,  2 Jan 2024 23:26:38 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C4AED38582B0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1704237998;
	bh=Me5/PyGx/4rG750kcYz/DjJ2yFbHwlvo1Z25/qnKRoQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=b7vo9tV7uLKJbkHhhyqhDZc+6MMBEeJS2mBDbtARqbFBkRj9fUicrR8iwpXrXU2Cx
	 qitVhC2ZrZ/OB1gCk2DWqBlhAhEERvpEBRH43DjGx6OLzu0k1Dbx3elfWmr0+/RQc0
	 TAqP98tGZ/hyhPqbX1CTngBsLKw6WUXLB+DXa+Sc=
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: Tue, 02 Jan 2024 23:26:38 +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: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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-bvD4Lc8mjv@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 #2 from Patrick O'Neill <patrick at rivosinc dot com> ---
This was with (In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #1)
> Do you use the latest upstream GCC ?
>=20
> I tried it, but didn't reproduce the issue.

I tested with r14-6884-g046cea56fd1. Since it's to be overwriting unrelated
variables we might be dealing with a similar situation as pr112929 where it=
 was
challenging to reproduce.

I'll rebuild with tip-of-tree and let you know if it passes/fails.=