From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 560B8385842B; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:44:21 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 560B8385842B DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1708681461; bh=2MKVsRaxOp2nlm67YecLhO7bvEhvK6AMgTMX500byGM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=cXeH5opRn7RFm/bvV4fJ2/GMVOOSRrbCrLtN/BHziQKCuaR9YJJNxpYM/WNjQACqO YpMy4sYHukEVPY1ehSfSpTAdAhzmk4N6OC1YpBmakQSye+qsvR4DaP6LrJa1E+LiTI 74WNQ/D1dD+mFUYgY+/qVGmZ+A9bYb2v3KrmrSxE= From: "pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/114057] [14 Regression] 435.gromacs fails verification on with -Ofast -march=znver4 and PGO Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:44:20 +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: pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org 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: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc keywords Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114057 Filip Kastl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fxue at os dot amperecompu= ting.com Keywords|needs-bisection | --- Comment #4 from Filip Kastl --- I've bisected this to g:57f611604e8bab67af6c0bcfe6ea88c001408412. (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > I guess it doesn't miscompare with -O3 or -O3 -fno-signed-zeros > -fno-trapping-math -ffinite-math-only -ffp-contract=3Dfast? I'll take a look. (In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #2) > Hm, seems like g:eb619490b01baa2f actually doesn't miscompare. My bad. Disregard this. g:eb619490b01baa2f *does* miscompare. I had some troubles w= ith my bisect script.=