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
This patch distinguishes between program points and lattice anchors in
data flow analysis, where lattice anchors represent locations where a
lattice can be attached, while program points denote points in program
execution.
Related discussions:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-unify-the-semantics-of-program-points/80671/8
This enum is used by dataflow analyses to indicate whether further
propagation is necessary to reach the fix point. Accidentally discarding
such a value will likely lead to propagation stopping early, leading to
incomplete or incorrect results. The most egregious example is the
duality between `join` on the analysis class, which triggers propagation
internally, and `join` on the lattice class that does not and expects
the caller to trigger it depending on the returned `ChangeResult`.
The MLIR classes Type/Attribute/Operation/Op/Value support
cast/dyn_cast/isa/dyn_cast_or_null functionality through llvm's doCast
functionality in addition to defining methods with the same name.
This change begins the migration of uses of the method to the
corresponding function call as has been decided as more consistent.
Note that there still exist classes that only define methods directly,
such as AffineExpr, and this does not include work currently to support
a functional cast/isa call.
Context:
- https://mlir.llvm.org/deprecation/ at "Use the free function variants
for dyn_cast/cast/isa/…"
- Original discussion at https://discourse.llvm.org/t/preferred-casting-style-going-forward/68443
Implementation:
This patch updates all remaining uses of the deprecated functionality in
mlir/. This was done with clang-tidy as described below and further
modifications to GPUBase.td and OpenMPOpsInterfaces.td.
Steps are described per line, as comments are removed by git:
0. Retrieve the change from the following to build clang-tidy with an
additional check:
main...tpopp:llvm-project:tidy-cast-check
1. Build clang-tidy
2. Run clang-tidy over your entire codebase while disabling all checks
and enabling the one relevant one. Run on all header files also.
3. Delete .inc files that were also modified, so the next build rebuilds
them to a pure state.
```
ninja -C $BUILD_DIR clang-tidy
run-clang-tidy -clang-tidy-binary=$BUILD_DIR/bin/clang-tidy -checks='-*,misc-cast-functions'\
-header-filter=mlir/ mlir/* -fix
rm -rf $BUILD_DIR/tools/mlir/**/*.inc
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D151542
Foo analysis for testing the data flow analysis does not support the region without any block. Although that analysis is assumed to be used for testing purpose, it is generally better to be explicit about the scope the framework supports.
The original issue was reported here.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/60580
Reviewed By: springerm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144359
Currently, for sparse analyses, we always store a `Optional<ValueT>` in each lattice element. When it's `None`, we consider the lattice element as `uninitialized`.
However:
* Not all lattices have an `uninitialized` state. For example, `Executable` and `PredecessorState` have default values so they are always initialized.
* In dense analyses, we don't have the concept of an `uninitialized` state.
Given these inconsistencies, this patch removes `Lattice::isUninitialized()`. Individual analysis states are now default-constructed. If the default state of an analysis can be considered as "uninitialized" then this analysis should implement the following logic:
* Special join rule: `join(uninitialized, any) == any`.
* Special bail out logic: if any of the input states is uninitialized, exit the transfer function early.
Depends On D132086
Reviewed By: Mogball
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132800
Depends On D131660
`defaultInitialize()` was introduced for the "nudging" behavior, which has been deleted.
Reviewed By: Mogball, rriddle
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D131746
Removes one element of the pointer union to make it work on 32-bit
systems.
This patch introduces a generic data-flow analysis framework to MLIR. The framework implements a fixed-point iteration algorithm and a dependency graph between lattice states and analysis. Lattice states and points are fully extensible to support highly-customizable analyses.
Reviewed By: phisiart, rriddle
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126751
This patch introduces a generic data-flow analysis framework to MLIR. The framework implements a fixed-point iteration algorithm and a dependency graph between lattice states and analysis. Lattice states and points are fully extensible to support highly-customizable analyses.
Reviewed By: phisiart, rriddle
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126751
