From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16823 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2003 00:26:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16809 invoked by uid 71); 25 Feb 2003 00:26:00 -0000 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030225002600.16808.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Janis Johnson Subject: Re: c/9787: optimization bug with 176.gcc from SPECcpu2000 Reply-To: Janis Johnson X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg01309.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/9787; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Janis Johnson To: thomas.anders@blue-cable.de Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c/9787: optimization bug with 176.gcc from SPECcpu2000 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:22:48 -0800 > The 176.gcc benchmark from the latest SPECcpu2000 V1.2 benchmark suite (www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/) gives wrong results ("miscompare") when using optimization levels 1, 2 or 3 (e.g. "-O3") and "-march=pentium4" with gcc 3.2.2 (Release). Unfortunately I can't provide the source code here since it's covered under SPEC's license. A SPEC licensee (from SuSE, RedHat and friends) should be looking at this issue. The source code of the benchmark is GCC and it's covered by the GNU General Public License; SPEC can't change that. The input that causes this behavior, however, is a different matter. (This isn't meant to be legal advice.)