- User Since
- Aug 9 2020, 2:16 PM (92 w, 12 h)
Sat, May 14
Basically, I threw this patch up because I don't think, as things stand, there's a great way to detect this ambiguity. A lot of ops use the format $variadicOperands attr-dict require at least 1 operand or have some other invariant that make the format not actually ambiguous. Enforcing this check would make a lot of existing formats uglier than they need to be...
Fri, May 13
review comments, and drop requirement that blocks need to not have SSA dominance
make it compile at least
simplify the implementation of the attribute-colon verifier and catch more cases
Wed, May 11
split out TestOps change as NFC
LGTM but I'm not really an authority on the integer arithmetic...
Could you add one test op that sets the ranges of its block arguments and test that it works correctly?
add extra test case
MLIR is not entirely consistent with the namespace end comment but the preferred way is as such
I'm open to iterating in tree. Landing this utility first and then try adding it as a canonicalization SGTM.
Tue, May 10
Mostly LGTM, just missing some tests
On the matter of whether this should be a canonicalization, my concern with this is that if an operation has its own preferred ordering of operands that conflicts with the sort, then this will cause canonicalization to loop infinitely.
I need to look at the algorithm in more detail, but I'm not a fan of using a string key. Concatenating strings to make compound keys is not very efficient and potentially brittle. Can you assign unique IDs and use an array of IDs instead?
SCCP will defer to Dialect::materializeConstant. You could do the same with your pass.
Sun, May 8
Yeah that's... unfortunate to hear. ODS can be a bag of knives sometimes. I'll take a look at the bugs.
Fri, May 6
Thu, May 5
Context: this pass was sitting around internally and since it's not anything specific, thought I'd upstream it
thanks for all the additions, by the way
So to keep the ball rolling on this one, I will pretend to be river and answer your questions :P
Thu, Apr 28
lgtm but you might want to wait if anyone else has complaints
Thanks for all the fixes/additions to the LLVM importer
Mon, Apr 25
Yeah, I'm fine with moving forward on this. I don't see anything here that's tied to the arithmetic dialect and that couldn't just be moved to another directory and renamed.
Sun, Apr 24
Fri, Apr 22
Thu, Apr 21
Does allowing the reordering of transform operations really make sense if they do not declare all their pattern inputs and outputs? E.g.
Wed, Apr 20
Thanks for checking the performance!
Tue, Apr 19
Have you measured the performance of the new clone to ensure parity? Inlining in TF can get kind of heavy...
You can write a dummy test pass that just prints some text.
Mon, Apr 18
Apr 15 2022
Apr 13 2022
Apr 12 2022
Apr 11 2022
review comments -- adding some tests