}
EVT VT = LHSOp.getValueType();
- assert(RHSOp.getValueType() == VT &&
- "SimplifyVBinOp with different BUILD_VECTOR element types");
+ EVT RVT = RHSOp.getValueType();
+ if (RVT != VT) {
+ // Integer BUILD_VECTOR operands may have types larger than the element
+ // size (e.g., when the element type is not legal). Prior to type
+ // legalization, the types may not match between the two BUILD_VECTORS.
+ // Truncate one of the operands to make them match.
+ if (RVT.getSizeInBits() > VT.getSizeInBits()) {
+ RHSOp = DAG.getNode(ISD::TRUNCATE, N->getDebugLoc(), VT, RHSOp);
+ } else {
+ LHSOp = DAG.getNode(ISD::TRUNCATE, N->getDebugLoc(), RVT, LHSOp);
+ VT = RVT;
+ }
+ }
SDValue FoldOp = DAG.getNode(N->getOpcode(), LHS.getDebugLoc(), VT,
LHSOp, RHSOp);
if (FoldOp.getOpcode() != ISD::UNDEF &&
ret void
}
+; The following test was hitting an assertion in the DAG combiner when
+; constant folding the multiply because the "sext undef" was translated to
+; a BUILD_VECTOR with i32 0 operands, which did not match the i16 operands
+; of the other BUILD_VECTOR.
+define i16 @foldBuildVectors() {
+ %1 = sext <8 x i8> undef to <8 x i16>
+ %2 = mul <8 x i16> %1, <i16 255, i16 255, i16 255, i16 255, i16 255, i16 255, i16 255, i16 255>
+ %3 = extractelement <8 x i16> %2, i32 0
+ ret i16 %3
+}