I observed that we have the boundary comments in the codebase like:
```
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
// ...
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
```
I also observed that there are incomplete boundary comments. The
revision is generated by a script that completes the boundary comments.
```
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
// ...
...
```
Signed-off-by: hanhanW <hanhan0912@gmail.com>
The greedy rewriter is used in many different flows and it has a lot of
convenience (work list management, debugging actions, tracing, etc). But
it combines two kinds of greedy behavior 1) how ops are matched, 2)
folding wherever it can.
These are independent forms of greedy and leads to inefficiency. E.g.,
cases where one need to create different phases in lowering and is
required to applying patterns in specific order split across different
passes. Using the driver one ends up needlessly retrying folding/having
multiple rounds of folding attempts, where one final run would have
sufficed.
Of course folks can locally avoid this behavior by just building their
own, but this is also a common requested feature that folks keep on
working around locally in suboptimal ways.
For downstream users, there should be no behavioral change. Updating
from the deprecated should just be a find and replace (e.g., `find ./
-type f -exec sed -i
's|applyPatternsAndFoldGreedily|applyPatternsGreedily|g' {} \;` variety)
as the API arguments hasn't changed between the two.
This exposes most of the `RewriterBase` methods to the C API.
This allows to manipulate both the `IRRewriter` and the
`PatternRewriter`. The
`IRRewriter` can be created from the C API, while the `PatternRewriter`
cannot.
The missing operations are the ones taking `Block::iterator` and
`Region::iterator` as
parameters, as they are not exposed by the C API yet AFAIK.
The Python bindings for these methods and classes are not implemented.
Following a rather direct approach to expose PDL usage from C and then
Python. This doesn't yes plumb through adding support for custom
matchers through this interface, so constrained to basics initially.
This also exposes greedy rewrite driver. Only way currently to define
patterns is via PDL (just to keep small). The creation of the PDL
pattern module could be improved to avoid folks potentially accessing
the module used to construct it post construction. No ergonomic work
done yet.
---------
Signed-off-by: Jacques Pienaar <jpienaar@google.com>
