This support has never really worked well, and is incredibly clunky to
use (it effectively creates two argument APIs), and clunky to generate (it isn't
clear how we should actually expose this from PDL frontends). Treating these
as just attribute arguments is much much cleaner in every aspect of the stack.
If we need to optimize lots of constant parameters, it would be better to
investigate internal representation optimizations (e.g. batch attribute creation),
that do not affect the user (we want a clean external API).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121569
This commit adds signature support to the language server,
and initially supports providing help for: operation operands and results,
and constraint/rewrite calls.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121545
This commit adds code completion support to the language server,
and initially supports providing completions for: Member access,
attributes/constraint/dialect/operation names, and pattern metadata.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121544
This commits adds a basic language server for PDLL to enable providing
language features in IDEs such as VSCode. This initial commit only
adds support for tracking definitions, references, and diagnostics, but
followup commits will build upon this to provide more significant behavior.
In addition to the server, this commit also updates mlir-vscode to support
the PDLL language and invoke the server.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121541
There is no reason for this file to be at the top-level, and
its current placement predates the Parser/ folder's existence.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121024
This commit adds support for processing tablegen include files, and importing
various information from ODS. This includes operations, attribute+type constraints,
attribute/operation/type interfaces, etc. This will allow for much more robust tooling,
and also allows for referencing ODS constructs directly within PDLL (imported interfaces
can be used as constraints, operation result names can be used for member access, etc).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119900
PDL currently doesn't support result values from constraints, meaning we need
to error out until this is actually supported to avoid crashes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119782
This commits adds a C++ generator to PDLL that generates wrapper PDL patterns
directly usable in C++ code, and also generates the definitions of native constraints/rewrites
that have code bodies specified in PDLL. This generator is effectively the PDLL equivalent of
the current DRR generator, and will allow easy replacement of DRR patterns with PDLL patterns.
A followup will start to utilize this for end-to-end integration testing and show case how to
use this as a drop-in replacement for DRR tablegen usage.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119781
If the operand list or result list of an operation expression is not specified, we interpret
this as meaning that the operands/results are "unconstraint" (i.e. "could be anything").
We currently don't properly handle differentiating this case from the case of
"no operands/results". This commit adds the insertion of implicit value/type range
variables when these lists are unspecified. This allows for adding proper support
for when zero operands or results are expected.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119780
This commits starts to plumb PDLL down into MLIR and adds an initial
PDL generator. After this commit, we will have conceptually support
end-to-end execution of PDLL. Followups will add CPP generation to
match the current DRR setup, and begin to add various end-to-end
tests to test PDLL execution.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119779
These functions allow for defining pattern fragments usable within the `match` and `rewrite` sections of a pattern. The main structure of Constraints and Rewrites functions are the same, and are similar to functions in other languages; they contain a signature (i.e. name, argument list, result list) and a body:
```pdll
// Constraint that takes a value as an input, and produces a value:
Constraint Cst(arg: Value) -> Value { ... }
// Constraint that returns multiple values:
Constraint Cst() -> (result1: Value, result2: ValueRange);
```
When returning multiple results, each result can be optionally be named (the result of a Constraint/Rewrite in the case of multiple results is a tuple).
These body of a Constraint/Rewrite functions can be specified in several ways:
* Externally
In this case we are importing an external function (registered by the user outside of PDLL):
```pdll
Constraint Foo(op: Op);
Rewrite Bar();
```
* In PDLL (using PDLL constructs)
In this case, the body is defined using PDLL constructs:
```pdll
Rewrite BuildFooOp() {
// The result type of the Rewrite is inferred from the return.
return op<my_dialect.foo>;
}
// Constraints/Rewrites can also implement a lambda/expression
// body for simple one line bodies.
Rewrite BuildFooOp() => op<my_dialect.foo>;
```
* In PDLL (using a native/C++ code block)
In this case the body is specified using a C++(or potentially other language at some point) code block. When building PDLL in AOT mode this will generate a native constraint/rewrite and register it with the PDL bytecode.
```pdll
Rewrite BuildFooOp() -> Op<my_dialect.foo> [{
return rewriter.create<my_dialect::FooOp>(...);
}];
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115836
This allows for defining simple patterns in a single line. The lambda
body of a Pattern expects a single operation rewrite statement:
```
Pattern => replace op<my_dialect.foo>(operands: ValueRange) with operands;
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115835
The `rewrite` statement allows for rewriting a given root
operation with a block of nested rewriters. The root operation is
not implicitly erased or replaced, and any transformations to it
must be expressed within the nested rewrite block. The inner body
may contain any number of other rewrite statements, variables, or
expressions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115299
This statement acts as a companion to the existing `erase`
statement, and is the corresponding PDLL construct for the
`PatternRewriter::replaceOp` C++ API. This statement replaces a
given operation with a set of values.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115298
Tuples are used to group multiple elements into a single
compound value. The values in a tuple can be of any type, and
do not need to be of the same type. There is also no limit to
the number of elements held by a tuple.
Tuples will be used to support multiple results from
Constraints and Rewrites (added in a followup), and will also
make it easier to support more complex primitives (such as
range based maps that can operate on multiple values).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115297
An operation expression in PDLL represents an MLIR operation. In
the match section of a pattern, this expression models one of
the input operations to the pattern. In the rewrite section of
a pattern, this expression models one of the operations to
create. The general structure of the operation expression is very
similar to that of the "generic form" of textual MLIR assembly:
```
let root = op<my_dialect.foo>(operands: ValueRange) {attr = attr: Attr} -> (resultTypes: TypeRange);
```
For now we only model the components that are within PDL, as PDL
gains support for blocks and regions so will this expression.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115296
This allows for using literal attributes and types within PDLL,
which simplifies building both constraints and rewriters. For
example, checking if an attribute is true is as simple as
`attr<"true">`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115295
This allows for overriding the metadata of a pattern and
providing information such as the benefit, bounded recursion,
and more in the future.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115294
This is a new pattern rewrite frontend designed from the ground
up to support MLIR constructs, and to target PDL. This frontend
language was proposed in https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-pdll-a-new-declarative-rewrite-frontend-for-mlir/4798
This commit starts sketching out the base structure of the
frontend, and is intended to be a minimal starting point for
building up the language. It essentially contains support for
defining a pattern, variables, and erasing an operation. The
features mentioned in the proposal RFC (including IDE support)
will be added incrementally in followup commits.
I intend to upstream the documentation for the language in a
followup when a bit more of the pieces have been landed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115093
