The concept of a 'program point' in the original data flow framework is
ambiguous. It can refer to either an operation or a block itself. This
representation has different interpretations in forward and backward
data-flow analysis. In forward data-flow analysis, the program point of
an operation represents the state after the operation, while in backward
data flow analysis, it represents the state before the operation. When
using forward or backward data-flow analysis, it is crucial to carefully
handle this distinction to ensure correctness.
This patch refactors the definition of program point, unifying the
interpretation of program points in both forward and backward data-flow
analysis.
How to integrate this patch?
For dense forward data-flow analysis and other analysis (except dense
backward data-flow analysis), the program point corresponding to the
original operation can be obtained by `getProgramPointAfter(op)`, and
the program point corresponding to the original block can be obtained by
`getProgramPointBefore(block)`.
For dense backward data-flow analysis, the program point corresponding
to the original operation can be obtained by
`getProgramPointBefore(op)`, and the program point corresponding to the
original block can be obtained by `getProgramPointAfter(block)`.
NOTE: If you need to get the lattice of other data-flow analyses in
dense backward data-flow analysis, you should still use the dense
forward data-flow approach. For example, to get the Executable state of
a block in dense backward data-flow analysis and add the dependency of
the current operation, you should write:
``getOrCreateFor<Executable>(getProgramPointBefore(op),
getProgramPointBefore(block))``
In case above, we use getProgramPointBefore(op) because the analysis we
rely on is dense backward data-flow, and we use
getProgramPointBefore(block) because the lattice we query is the result
of a non-dense backward data flow computation.
related dsscussion:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-unify-the-semantics-of-program-points/80671/8
corresponding PSA:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/psa-program-point-semantics-change/81479
Base `DataFlowAnalysis::visit` returns `LogicalResult`, but wrappers's
Sparse/Dense/Forward/Backward `visitOperation` doesn't.
Sometimes it's needed to abort solver early if some unrecoverable
condition detected inside analysis.
Update `visitOperation` to return `LogicalResult` and propagate it to
`solver.initializeAndRun()`. Only `visitOperation` is updated for now,
it's possible to update other hooks like `visitNonControlFlowArguments`,
bit it's not needed immediately and let's keep this PR small.
Hijacked `UnderlyingValueAnalysis` test analysis to test it.
This PR massively reorganizes the Test dialect's source files. It moves
manually-written op hooks into `TestOpDefs.cpp`, moves format custom
directive parsers and printers into `TestFormatUtils`, adds missing
comment blocks, and moves around where generated source files are
included for types, attributes, enums, etc. into their own source file.
This will hopefully help navigate the test dialect source code, but also
speeds up compile time of the test dialect by putting generated source
files into separate compilation units.
This also sets up the test dialect to shard its op definitions, done in
the next PR.
The core implementation of the dataflow anlysis framework is
interpocedural by design. While this offers better analysis precision,
it also comes with additional cost as it takes longer for the analysis
to reach the fixpoint state. Add a configuration mechanism to the
dataflow solver to control whether it operates inteprocedurally or not
to offer clients a choice.
As a positive side effect, this change also adds hooks for explicitly
processing external/opaque function calls in the dataflow analyses,
e.g., based off of attributes present in the the function declaration or
call operation such as alias scopes and modref available in the LLVM
dialect.
This change should not affect existing analyses and the default solver
configuration remains interprocedural.
Co-authored-by: Jacob Peng <jacobmpeng@gmail.com>
The current implementation is not very ergonomic or descriptive: It uses `std::optional<unsigned>` where `std::nullopt` represents the parent op and `unsigned` is the region number.
This doesn't give us any useful methods specific to region control flow and makes the code fragile to changes due to now taking the region number into account.
This patch introduces a new type called `RegionBranchPoint`, replacing all uses of `std::optional<unsigned>` in the interface. It can be implicitly constructed from a region or a `RegionSuccessor`, can be compared with a region to check whether the branch point is branching from the parent, adds `isParent` to check whether we are coming from a parent op and adds `RegionSuccessor::parent` as a descriptive way to indicate branching from the parent.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D159116
Initial implementations of dense dataflow analyses feature special cases
for operations that have region- or call-based control flow by
leveraging the corresponding interfaces. This is not necessarily
sufficient as these operations may influence the dataflow state by
themselves as well we through the control flow. For example,
`linalg.generic` and similar operations have region-based control flow
and their proper memory effects, so any memory-related analyses such as
last-writer require processing `linalg.generic` directly instead of, or
in addition to, the region-based flow.
Provide hooks to customize the processing of operations with region-
cand call-based contol flow in forward and backward dense dataflow
analysis. These hooks are trigerred when control flow is transferred
between the "main" operation, i.e. the call or the region owner, and
another region. Such an apporach allows the analyses to update the
lattice before and/or after the regions. In the `linalg.generic`
example, the reads from memory are interpreted as happening before the
body region and the writes to memory are interpreted as happening after
the body region. Using these hooks in generic analysis may require
introducing additional interfaces, but for now assume that the specific
analysis have spceial cases for the (rare) operaitons with call- and
region-based control flow that need additional processing.
Reviewed By: Mogball, phisiart
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D155757
This is the counterpart to the forward dense dataflow analysis and
integrates into the dataflow framework. The implementation follows the
structure of existing dataflow analyses.
Reviewed By: Mogball, phisiart
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D154713
