This has a numerous amount of benefits, given the overly clunky nature of CreateNativeOp:
* Users can now call into arbitrary rewrite functions from inside of PDL, allowing for more natural interleaving of PDL/C++ and enabling for more of the pattern to be in PDL.
* Removes the need for an additional set of C++ functions/registry/etc. The new ApplyNativeRewriteOp will use the same PDLRewriteFunction as the existing RewriteOp. This reduces the API surface area exposed to users.
This revision also introduces a new PDLResultList class. This class is used to provide results of native rewrite functions back to PDL. We introduce a new class instead of using a SmallVector to simplify the work necessary for variadics, given that ranges will require some changes to the structure of PDLValue.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95720
This makes the implementation of each bytecode operation much easier to reason about, and lets the compiler decide which implementations are beneficial to inline into the main switch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95716
The definitions of ModuleOp and FuncOp are now within BuiltinOps.h, making the individual files obsolete.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92622
PDL patterns are now supported via a new `PDLPatternModule` class. This class contains a ModuleOp with the pdl::PatternOp operations representing the patterns, as well as a collection of registered C++ functions for native constraints/creations/rewrites/etc. that may be invoked via the pdl patterns. Instances of this class are added to an OwningRewritePatternList in the same fashion as C++ RewritePatterns, i.e. via the `insert` method.
The PDL bytecode is an in-memory representation of the PDL interpreter dialect that can be efficiently interpreted/executed. The representation of the bytecode boils down to a code array(for opcodes/memory locations/etc) and a memory buffer(for storing attributes/operations/values/any other data necessary). The bytecode operations are effectively a 1-1 mapping to the PDLInterp dialect operations, with a few exceptions in cases where the in-memory representation of the bytecode can be more efficient than the MLIR representation. For example, a generic `AreEqual` bytecode op can be used to represent AreEqualOp, CheckAttributeOp, and CheckTypeOp.
The execution of the bytecode is split into two phases: matching and rewriting. When matching, all of the matched patterns are collected to avoid the overhead of re-running parts of the matcher. These matched patterns are then considered alongside the native C++ patterns, which rewrite immediately in-place via `RewritePattern::matchAndRewrite`, for the given root operation. When a PDL pattern is matched and has the highest benefit, it is passed back to the bytecode to execute its rewriter.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89107
