================ @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +// NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_cc_test_checks.py UTC_ARGS: --version 2 +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fclang-abi-compat=latest -triple aarch64-none-linux-gnu -target-feature +sve -emit-llvm -o - %s | FileCheck %s + +#include <arm_sve.h> + +using vec_t = svint8_t; + +/// From: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/107609 +/// The type of `vec` is a typedef of svint8_t, while svdup_s8 returns the non-typedef'd type. + +// CHECK-LABEL: define dso_local <vscale x 16 x i8> @_Z20sve_init_dup_typedefv +// CHECK-SAME: () #[[ATTR0:[0-9]+]] { +// CHECK-NEXT: entry: +// CHECK-NEXT: [[VEC:%.*]] = alloca <vscale x 16 x i8>, align 16 +// CHECK-NEXT: [[TMP0:%.*]] = call <vscale x 16 x i8> @llvm.aarch64.sve.dup.x.nxv16i8(i8 2) +// CHECK-NEXT: store <vscale x 16 x i8> [[TMP0]], ptr [[VEC]], align 16 +// CHECK-NEXT: [[TMP1:%.*]] = load <vscale x 16 x i8>, ptr [[VEC]], align 16 +// CHECK-NEXT: ret <vscale x 16 x i8> [[TMP1]] +// +vec_t sve_init_dup_typedef() { + vec_t vec{svdup_s8(2)}; + return vec; +} ---------------- paulwalker-arm wrote:
Not sure if you misread my comment or perhaps my proposed test does not work? My rational for suggesting a different test is that mine doesn't require arm_sve.h nor any builtin functions. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/118956 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
