https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103088
--- Comment #16 from Tamar Christina <tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14) > > > Richi the configury bits you shared once upon a time had > > > -fno-unsafe-math-optimizations for 500.perlbench. Are there known issues > > > with > > > this test for -ffast-math that we had -fno-unsafe-math-optimizations? > > > > Indeed - interesting. I don't remember anything and I have originally > > copied this config from our testers which means iff then maybe > > Martin knows ... ;) > > Yes, I can confirm we have > > EXTRA_OPTIMIZE = -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-unsafe-math-optimizations > > for perlbench benchmark. It's also mentioned in portability Issues: > https://www.spec.org/cpu2017/Docs/benchmarks/500.perlbench_r.html > > ``` > 3. GCC -Ofast and unsafe math: Users of GCC's -Ofast option may encounter > problems with the test workload failing to validate. If you go to the run > directory and look at file test.out.mis, you may see output such as: > ... > ``` > > So I would close this as invalid as it's a known limitation. I Disagree. Your text explicitly says "with the test workload failing to validate". this PR was about a new failure appearing with the ref workload. The spec portability section does not mention ref as ref used to work fine. I don't mind closing this as invalid, however this isn't a known limitation, it's a new limitation.
