4 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Matthias Springer
6923a31542
[mlir][IR] Change MutableArrayRange to enumerate OpOperand & (#66622)
In line with #66515, change `MutableArrayRange::begin`/`end` to
enumerate `OpOperand &` instead of `Value`. Also remove
`ForOp::getIterOpOperands`/`setIterArg`, which are now redundant.

Note: `MutableOperandRange` cannot be made a derived class of
`indexed_accessor_range_base` (like `OperandRange`), because
`MutableOperandRange::assign` can change the number of operands in the
range.
2023-09-19 09:09:21 +02:00
Martin Erhart
8160bce969
[mlir][bufferization][NFC] Introduce BufferDeallocationOpInterface (#66349)
This new interface allows operations to implement custom handling of ownership values and insertion of dealloc operations which is useful when an op cannot implement the interfaces supported by default by the buffer deallocation pass (e.g., because they are not exactly compatible or because there are some additional semantics to it that would render the default implementations in buffer deallocation invalid, or because no interfaces exist for this
kind of behavior and it's not worth introducing one plus a default implementation in buffer deallocation). Additionally, it can also be used to provide more efficient handling for a specific op than the interface based default
implementations can.
2023-09-14 13:58:30 +02:00
Martin Erhart
792caac0f8 Revert "[mlir][bufferization][NFC] Introduce BufferDeallocationOpInterface"
This reverts commit 29d86175e6a5fe956147734229dca88822415b21.

This caused problems in downstream projects. We are reverting to give
them more time for integration.
2023-09-13 13:53:47 +00:00
Martin Erhart
29d86175e6 [mlir][bufferization][NFC] Introduce BufferDeallocationOpInterface
This new interface allows operations to implement custom handling of ownership
values and insertion of dealloc operations which is useful when an op cannot
implement the interfaces supported by default by the buffer deallocation pass
(e.g., because they are not exactly compatible or because there are some
additional semantics to it that would render the default implementations in
buffer deallocation invalid, or because no interfaces exist for this kind of
behavior and it's not worth introducing one plus a default implementation in
buffer deallocation). Additionally, it can also be used to provide more
efficient handling for a specific op than the interface based default
implementations can.

Reviewed By: springerm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D158756
2023-09-13 09:30:23 +00:00