https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113087
Vineet Gupta <vineetg at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |vineetg at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13 from Vineet Gupta <vineetg at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #12)
> (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-g4d9e0f3f211.
> > > I'll let you know the results when they finish.
> >
> > My terminal crashed - so these are partial results:
> > zvl256: 3 runtime failures
> > 531.deepsjeng
> > ???
> > ???
> >
> > zvl128: 1 runtime failure
> > 527.cam4_r
> >
> > 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 case?
> zvl128 / no vl: 1 runtime failure
> 527.cam4_r
Yes this still remains. It is hard to debug (for me at least) as this is
fortran.
However this goes away if simple_vsetvl is used (with -Ofast for rest of
buiild) - using [1]
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-December/641342.html
