Page MenuHomePhabricator

Ding (Ding Yu)
User

Projects

User does not belong to any projects.

User Details

User Since
Oct 24 2021, 3:08 AM (67 w, 3 d)

Recent Activity

Mon, Jan 23

Ding updated the diff for D141900: Add support for processing Ops with empty region to the CSE.

Updating D141900: Add support for processing Ops with empty region to the CSE

Mon, Jan 23, 4:48 PM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Fri, Jan 20

Ding updated the diff for D141900: Add support for processing Ops with empty region to the CSE.

Updating D141900: Add support for processing Ops with empty region to the CSE

Fri, Jan 20, 8:48 PM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Tue, Jan 17

Ding updated the diff for D141900: Add support for processing Ops with empty region to the CSE.

Updating D141900: Add support for processing Ops with empty region to the CSE

Tue, Jan 17, 8:09 PM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project
Ding added a comment to D141900: Add support for processing Ops with empty region to the CSE.

Thanks! This was the fix I had in mind.

This is where the tests for ops with region are https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/d2f136920b9247a9e5874d4d3a00a880db6e2827/mlir/test/Transforms/cse.mlir#L327

This is the test op definition https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/d2f136920b9247a9e5874d4d3a00a880db6e2827/mlir/test/lib/Dialect/Test/TestOps.td#L3141 . You might need to add a new op, or change the op definition to test your case.

Tue, Jan 17, 6:46 PM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project
Ding requested review of D141900: Add support for processing Ops with empty region to the CSE.
Tue, Jan 17, 12:24 AM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Nov 20 2022

Ding added a comment to D136555: Add support to disable generation of setter/getter of attrs in ODS.

Sorry for the delay, lots of stuff internally.

The use of optional doesn't feel the same as what's described here, but I suppose it does somewhat match what we've already done with the "derived" attribute stuff. It'd be nice to clean up the attribute/argument/etc abstractions in ODS at some point, but I won't block on that.

Can we keep the Attr accessors? I can understand getting rid of the getFoo/setFoo accessors (if you want special behavior there), but I'm somewhat concerned that we are going to be creating a state of inconsistent API availability, and we often rely on certain accessors being available. The Attr accessors also handle the "good" practice of setting the attributes in the optimal/expected way.

Nov 20 2022, 7:47 PM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Nov 13 2022

Ding added a comment to D136555: Add support to disable generation of setter/getter of attrs in ODS.

This doesn't really feel like an abstraction that should be on the Attribute class, this feels closer to something that should be on the Arg class. IMO this is not about controlling the definition of an attribute, but of tweaking how the op generation happens.

Hi River, actually I am not sure I understood well what you would like to see. Could you please explain it more specifically?

Nov 13 2022, 12:27 AM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project
Ding updated the diff for D136555: Add support to disable generation of setter/getter of attrs in ODS.

Updating D136555: Add support to disable generation of setter/getter of attrs in ODS

Nov 13 2022, 12:03 AM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Nov 12 2022

Ding added a comment to D136555: Add support to disable generation of setter/getter of attrs in ODS.

This doesn't really feel like an abstraction that should be on the Attribute class, this feels closer to something that should be on the Arg class. IMO this is not about controlling the definition of an attribute, but of tweaking how the op generation happens.

Nov 12 2022, 2:22 AM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Nov 8 2022

Ding published D136555: Add support to disable generation of setter/getter of attrs in ODS for review.
Nov 8 2022, 10:20 PM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project