[Bug target/103320] 12 Regression] Spec 2017 benchmark roms_r fails on PowerPC for -Ofast

[linkw at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103320

Kewen Lin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin  ---
I also met this issue recently, not sure if roms_r's failure has the same root
cause with what we have for perlbench_r, perlbench_r's page [1] highlights the
option "-fno-unsafe-math-optimizations " while roms_r's [2] doesn't. One thing
to note is that without -funroll-loops roms_r's verification can pass. Maybe
it's a good idea to reopen this for more investigation?

[1] https://www.spec.org/cpu2017/Docs/benchmarks/500.perlbench_r.html
[2] https://www.spec.org/cpu2017/Docs/benchmarks/554.roms_r.html

[Bug target/103320] 12 Regression] Spec 2017 benchmark roms_r fails on PowerPC for -Ofast

[meissner at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103320

Michael Meissner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner  ---
Note, roms_r is not compatible with -Ofast or -ffast-math unless you use the
-fno-unsafe-math-optimizations option.  I'm going to close the bug since I've
adjusted my scripts to add that option to roms_r (and perlbench_r which also
needs it).

[Bug target/103320] 12 Regression] Spec 2017 benchmark roms_r fails on PowerPC for -Ofast

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103320

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Component|regression  |target
 Target||powerpc64le
Summary|Spec 2017 benchmark roms_r  |12 Regression] Spec 2017
   |fails on PowerPC for -Ofast |benchmark roms_r fails on
   ||PowerPC for -Ofast
   Target Milestone|--- |12.0