The operand_segment_sizes and result_segment_sizes Attributes are now inlined
in the operation as native propertie. We continue to support building an
Attribute on the fly for `getAttr("operand_segment_sizes")` and setting the
property from an attribute with `setAttr("operand_segment_sizes", attr)`.
A new bytecode version is introduced to support backward compatibility and
backdeployments.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D155919
The operand_segment_sizes and result_segment_sizes Attributes are now inlined
in the operation as native propertie. We continue to support building an
Attribute on the fly for `getAttr("operand_segment_sizes")` and setting the
property from an attribute with `setAttr("operand_segment_sizes", attr)`.
A new bytecode version is introduced to support backward compatibility and
backdeployments.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D155919
This is adding a new interface (`BytecodeOpInterface`) to allow operations to
opt-in skipping conversion to attribute and serializing properties to native
bytecode.
The scheme relies on a new section where properties are stored in sequence
{ size, serialize_properties }, ...
The operations are storing the index of a properties, a table of offset is
built when loading the properties section the first time.
This is a re-commit of 837d1ce0dc which conflicted with another patch upgrading
the bytecode and the collision wasn't properly resolved before.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D151065
This reverts commit ca5a12fd69d4acf70c08f797cbffd714dd548348
and follow-up fixes:
df34c288c428eb4b867c8075def48b3d1727d60b
07dc906883af660780cf6d0cc1044f7e74dab83e
ab80ad0095083fda062c23ac90df84c40b4332c8
837d1ce0dc8eec5b17255291b3462e6296cb369b
The first commit was incomplete and broken, I'll prepare a new version
later, in the meantime pull this work out of tree.
This is adding a new interface (`BytecodeOpInterface`) to allow operations to
opt-in skipping conversion to attribute and serializing properties to native
bytecode.
The scheme relies on a new section where properties are stored in sequence
{ size, serialize_properties }, ...
The operations are storing the index of a properties, a table of offset is
built when loading the properties section the first time.
Back-deployment to version prior to 4 are relying on getAttrDictionnary() which
we intend to deprecate and remove: that is putting a de-factor end-of-support
horizon for supporting deployments to version older than 4.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D151065
This new features enabled to dedicate custom storage inline within operations.
This storage can be used as an alternative to attributes to store data that is
specific to an operation. Attribute can also be stored inside the properties
storage if desired, but any kind of data can be present as well. This offers
a way to store and mutate data without uniquing in the Context like Attribute.
See the OpPropertiesTest.cpp for an example where a struct with a
std::vector<> is attached to an operation and mutated in-place:
struct TestProperties {
int a = -1;
float b = -1.;
std::vector<int64_t> array = {-33};
};
More complex scheme (including reference-counting) are also possible.
The only constraint to enable storing a C++ object as "properties" on an
operation is to implement three functions:
- convert from the candidate object to an Attribute
- convert from the Attribute to the candidate object
- hash the object
Optional the parsing and printing can also be customized with 2 extra
functions.
A new options is introduced to ODS to allow dialects to specify:
let usePropertiesForAttributes = 1;
When set to true, the inherent attributes for all the ops in this dialect
will be using properties instead of being stored alongside discardable
attributes.
The TestDialect showcases this feature.
Another change is that we introduce new APIs on the Operation class
to access separately the inherent attributes from the discardable ones.
We envision deprecating and removing the `getAttr()`, `getAttrsDictionary()`,
and other similar method which don't make the distinction explicit, leading
to an entirely separate namespace for discardable attributes.
Recommit d572cd1b067f after fixing python bindings build.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D141742
This new features enabled to dedicate custom storage inline within operations.
This storage can be used as an alternative to attributes to store data that is
specific to an operation. Attribute can also be stored inside the properties
storage if desired, but any kind of data can be present as well. This offers
a way to store and mutate data without uniquing in the Context like Attribute.
See the OpPropertiesTest.cpp for an example where a struct with a
std::vector<> is attached to an operation and mutated in-place:
struct TestProperties {
int a = -1;
float b = -1.;
std::vector<int64_t> array = {-33};
};
More complex scheme (including reference-counting) are also possible.
The only constraint to enable storing a C++ object as "properties" on an
operation is to implement three functions:
- convert from the candidate object to an Attribute
- convert from the Attribute to the candidate object
- hash the object
Optional the parsing and printing can also be customized with 2 extra
functions.
A new options is introduced to ODS to allow dialects to specify:
let usePropertiesForAttributes = 1;
When set to true, the inherent attributes for all the ops in this dialect
will be using properties instead of being stored alongside discardable
attributes.
The TestDialect showcases this feature.
Another change is that we introduce new APIs on the Operation class
to access separately the inherent attributes from the discardable ones.
We envision deprecating and removing the `getAttr()`, `getAttrsDictionary()`,
and other similar method which don't make the distinction explicit, leading
to an entirely separate namespace for discardable attributes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D141742
