-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 73
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Lowering Through LLVM #26
Merged
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
26 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
48f8909
add poly_to_llvm test file
j2kun a54f23f
add starter poly-to-llvm pipeline
j2kun 225952a
add convert-func-to-llvm
j2kun a2a2500
add arith-to-llvm
j2kun 160df60
add elementwise-to-linalg
j2kun 4bcf28a
add back arith-to-llvm
j2kun c8fa178
add tensor-to-linalg
j2kun 484edda
add do-nothing linalg-to-loops pass
j2kun 3f536bc
add scf-to-cf and cf-to-llvm passes
j2kun 4f12694
update upstream MLIR commit
j2kun fa6d030
fix conj pattern broken by mlir update
j2kun d2e0a72
migrate use of constFoldBinaryOp
j2kun ae33086
fix conflict caused by new function overload
j2kun 0ea7a77
move arith-to-llvm to the end of the pass
j2kun cf54412
add one-shot bufferization pass
j2kun c74ab3e
move func-to-llvm after bufferization, enabling linalg-to-loops
j2kun a3cee1e
memref-expand-strided-metadata and finalize-memref-to-llvm
j2kun a9f9456
move func-to-llvm even later
j2kun 24ac606
add canonicalization cleanup
j2kun e0e6ea3
encode end-to-end compilation pipeline as a test
j2kun 29ead0b
add a poly.eval-specific end-to-end test
j2kun bc47670
ensure llc uses the same PositionIndependentExecutable option as clang
j2kun 8422826
fix the off-by-one error in the lowering of eval
j2kun 7660ef0
udpate cmake build to use same LLVM commit
j2kun d39dcdb
update subproject commit
j2kun 1902439
add project_src_dir so tests work with both bazel and cmake
j2kun File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there a particular reason for adding
mlir::createCanonicalizerPass()
two times? There's one on the top which I think was for the passes we had created and there's this one which to my understanding should be dealing with the canonicalization of the other upstream passes we added to this pipeline.I tried to remove the first one and just keep this last one here and the binary still works correctly (just that there is some difference in the instructions being generated in the end).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In general canonicalization must not change the behavior of the program (or else it would be buggy). It will only make things more efficient. Canonicalization patterns apply to particular ops in particular dialects, and higher-level canonicalization patterns tend to remove more unnecessary work than applying lower-level canonicalization patterns, since they capture a larger breadth of the overall program. Running canonicalization after every pass would be even better. But the reason we don't is because we expect it to do nothing, and it adds to the total runtime.