https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112611
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jiahao Xu from comment #1) > Due to some issues with the implementation of the [x]vshuf instruction in > LA464, there is a problem where, when the index value in the register is > greater than or equal to 64, it fails to perform modulo operation to obtain > a new index for selecting the corresponding element. Instead, it directly > writes a 0 to the destination register. LA664 has fixed this issue. > > The expected results in these two files are not the correct results, but > rather the results obtained directly using the [x]vshuf instruction on > la464. This is why they fail on LA664. Now, there are two possible > solutions. One is to delete these two problematic test cases, as you > suggested. The other solution is to modify the expected results to the > correct ones and only test these two files on LA664. We are currently > considering which option to choose. Maybe just rewriting the results to match LA664, and invoke CPUCFG to skip these tests for any other implementations? In the future we better assign a CPUCFG bit to indicate this.
