uint64_t Field = ConstIdx->getZExtValue();
BaseOffset += DL.getStructLayout(STy)->getElementOffset(Field);
} else {
- int64_t ElementSize = DL.getTypeAllocSize(GTI.getIndexedType());
+ // If this operand is a scalable type, bail out early.
+ // TODO: handle scalable vectors
+ if (isa<ScalableVectorType>(TargetType))
+ return TTI::TCC_Basic;
+ int64_t ElementSize =
+ DL.getTypeAllocSize(GTI.getIndexedType()).getFixedSize();
if (ConstIdx) {
BaseOffset +=
ConstIdx->getValue().sextOrTrunc(PtrSizeBits) * ElementSize;
--- /dev/null
+; RUN: opt -cost-model -analyze -mtriple=aarch64--linux-gnu -mattr=+sve < %s 2>%t | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: FileCheck --check-prefix=WARN --allow-empty %s < %t
+
+; This regression test is verifying that a GEP instruction performed on a
+; scalable vector does not produce a 'assumption that TypeSize is not scalable'
+; warning when performing cost analysis.
+
+; If this check fails please read test/CodeGen/AArch64/README for instructions on how to resolve it.
+; WARN-NOT: warning: {{.*}}TypeSize is not scalable
+
+; CHECK: Cost Model: Found an estimated cost of 1 for instruction: %retval = getelementptr
+define <vscale x 16 x i8>* @gep_scalable_vector(<vscale x 16 x i8>* %ptr) {
+ %retval = getelementptr <vscale x 16 x i8>, <vscale x 16 x i8>* %ptr, i32 2
+ ret <vscale x 16 x i8>* %retval
+}