The old "pointer/index" names often cause confusion since these names clash with names of unrelated things in MLIR; so this change rectifies this by changing everything to use "position/coordinate" terminology instead.
In addition to the basic terminology, there have also been various conventions for making certain distinctions like: (1) the overall storage for coordinates in the sparse-tensor, vs the particular collection of coordinates of a given element; and (2) particular coordinates given as a `Value` or `TypedValue<MemRefType>`, vs particular coordinates given as `ValueRange` or similar. I have striven to maintain these distinctions
as follows:
* "p/c" are used for individual position/coordinate values, when there is no risk of confusion. (Just like we use "d/l" to abbreviate "dim/lvl".)
* "pos/crd" are used for individual position/coordinate values, when a longer name is helpful to avoid ambiguity or to form compound names (e.g., "parentPos"). (Just like we use "dim/lvl" when we need a longer form of "d/l".)
I have also used these forms for a handful of compound names where the old name had been using a three-letter form previously, even though a longer form would be more appropriate. I've avoided renaming these to use a longer form purely for expediency sake, since changing them would require a cascade of other renamings. They should be updated to follow the new naming scheme, but that can be done in future patches.
* "coords" is used for the complete collection of crd values associated with a single element. In the runtime library this includes both `std::vector` and raw pointer representations. In the compiler, this is used specifically for buffer variables with C++ type `Value`, `TypedValue<MemRefType>`, etc.
The bare form "coords" is discouraged, since it fails to make the dim/lvl distinction; so the compound names "dimCoords/lvlCoords" should be used instead. (Though there may exist a rare few cases where is is appropriate to be intentionally ambiguous about what coordinate-space the coords live in; in which case the bare "coords" is appropriate.)
There is seldom the need for the pos variant of this notion. In most circumstances we use the term "cursor", since the same buffer is reused for a 'moving' pos-collection.
* "dcvs/lcvs" is used in the compiler as the `ValueRange` analogue of "dimCoords/lvlCoords". (The "vs" stands for "`Value`s".) I haven't found the need for it, but "pvs" would be the obvious name for a pos-`ValueRange`.
The old "ind"-vs-"ivs" naming scheme does not seem to have been sustained in more recent code, which instead prefers other mnemonics (e.g., adding "Buf" to the end of the names for `TypeValue<MemRefType>`). I have cleaned up a lot of these to follow the "coords"-vs-"cvs" naming scheme, though haven't done an exhaustive cleanup.
* "positions/coordinates" are used for larger collections of pos/crd values; in particular, these are used when referring to the complete sparse-tensor storage components.
I also prefer to use these unabbreviated names in the documentation, unless there is some specific reason why using the abbreviated forms helps resolve ambiguity.
In addition to making this terminology change, this change also does some cleanup along the way:
* correcting the dim/lvl terminology in certain places.
* adding `const` when it requires no other code changes.
* miscellaneous cleanup that was entailed in order to make the proper distinctions. Most of these are in CodegenUtils.{h,cpp}
Reviewed By: aartbik
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144773
The bulk of D142074 seems to have gotten overwritten due to some sort of merge conflict (afaict there's no record of it having been reverted intentionally). So this commit redoes those changes. In addition to the original changes, this commit also:
* moves the definition of `getRankedTensorType` (from `Transforms/CodegenUtils.h` to `IR/SparseTensor.h`), so that it can be used by `IR/SparseTensorDialect.cpp`.
* adds `getMemRefType` as another abbreviation.
Reviewed By: aartbik
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D142503
This adds the capability to vectorize computations like a[i] = i.
This also generalizes the supported unary and binary ops and
adds a test for each to ensure actual SIMD code can result.
Reviewed By: bixia
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D138956
A few more dots on the i's of the sparse vectorizer.
Also makes reduction matching less brittle.
Reviewed By: qcolombet
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D138513
This brings back previous SIMD functionality, but in a separate pass.
The idea is to improve this new pass incrementally, going beyond for-loops
to while-loops for co-iteration as welll (masking), while introducing new
abstractions to make the lowering more progressive. The separation of
sparsification and vectorization is a very good first step on this journey.
Also brings back ArmSVE support
Still to be fine-tuned:
+ use of "index" in SIMD loop (viz. a[i] = i)
+ check that all ops really have SIMD support
+ check all forms of reductions
+ chain reduction SIMD values
Reviewed By: dcaballe
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D138236
