it makes sense. I think sibling fusion fell behind when I generalized producer-consumer fusion as I didn't look too much into it at that time.

LGTM! Just a minor comment that you can fix before landing.

In the commit message would be even better :)

Could you please elaborate on what is going on? Why this is no longer necessary? What is the replacement?

LGTM. All my comments have been resolved. Please, wait for Mehdi to provide feedback on the remaining open questions/secondary PRs.

Thanks!

LGTM! A couple of comments.

I took a first look and this looks really promising! Thank you so much for working on this so quickly.
Before we move forward with deeper reviews and comments, do you plan to send and RFC? I think this interface may benefit from one as it will impact multiple dialects. It would recommend so even if it's just an informative one.

Thanks for addressing this! Good discussion!

Thanks!

LGTM, thanks! I'd love to see this also working for 2D vectors :)

Clang-format is not passing. Assuming the llvm configuration is used, I wonder if the problem is that your clang-format is outdated. Perhaps, the formatting issues that you see in https://reviews.llvm.org/D145160 are related only to your code and this diff wouldn't be necessary?

Sorry, I meant the diff context. If you look at the code below, it says "Context not available". You have to use git diff -U999999 if you are uploading a patch manually (take a look at the link I provided in my previous message). If you use Arcanist (see https://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html#requesting-a-review-via-the-command-line), it should take care of this automatically.

Thanks for the contributions! Could you please submit a patch with full context? https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#making-and-submitting-a-patch

Build fails due to "mlir/lib/Dialect/Linalg/Transforms/Vectorization.cpp" not formatted (clang-format) properly in the current upstream branch. Not sure if the formatting change should go with this MR.

Thanks for the contribution! Just a couple of nits! LGTM

Addressed feedback

Addressed feedback

I'm missing context here but do we want to restrict the ABIs to only those two? We are using ilp32, for example, and there are others (e.g., ilp32f, lp64, lp64f etc.).

Awesome! I didn't know there was a fallback mechanism!

LGTM! Just a comment about the tests

Thanks!

We are seeing some correctness issues when integrating this commit. We attempted to fix it here https://reviews.llvm.org/D143243 but it looks like something else is still not working.
For the following affine.apply:

Thanks!

Thanks a lot for the contribution!

Awesome!

Thanks for the fix!

Ouch... Thanks, Aart!

Thanks for adding support for this! It looks great! A few comments

Thanks for the review!