2020-04-12 02:38:05 +08:00
|
|
|
# MLIR Language Reference
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-07-19 01:34:19 +08:00
|
|
|
MLIR (Multi-Level IR) is a compiler intermediate representation with
|
|
|
|
similarities to traditional three-address SSA representations (like
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
[LLVM IR](http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html) or
|
|
|
|
[SIL](https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/SIL.rst)), but which
|
|
|
|
introduces notions from polyhedral loop optimization as first-class concepts.
|
|
|
|
This hybrid design is optimized to represent, analyze, and transform high level
|
|
|
|
dataflow graphs as well as target-specific code generated for high performance
|
|
|
|
data parallel systems. Beyond its representational capabilities, its single
|
|
|
|
continuous design provides a framework to lower from dataflow graphs to
|
|
|
|
high-performance target-specific code.
|
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
This document defines and describes the key concepts in MLIR, and is intended
|
|
|
|
to be a dry reference document - the [rationale
|
|
|
|
documentation](Rationale/Rationale.md),
|
|
|
|
[glossary](../getting_started/Glossary.md), and other content are hosted
|
|
|
|
elsewhere.
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MLIR is designed to be used in three different forms: a human-readable textual
|
|
|
|
form suitable for debugging, an in-memory form suitable for programmatic
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
transformations and analysis, and a compact serialized form suitable for
|
|
|
|
storage and transport. The different forms all describe the same semantic
|
|
|
|
content. This document describes the human-readable textual form.
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[TOC]
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
## High-Level Structure
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
MLIR is fundamentally based on a graph-like data structure of nodes, called
|
|
|
|
*Operations*, and edges, called *Values*. Each Value is the result of exactly
|
|
|
|
one Operation or Block Argument, and has a *Value Type* defined by the [type
|
|
|
|
system](#type-system). [Operations](#operations) are contained in
|
|
|
|
[Blocks](#blocks) and Blocks are contained in [Regions](#regions). Operations
|
|
|
|
are also ordered within their containing block and Blocks are ordered in their
|
|
|
|
containing region, although this order may or may not be semantically
|
2020-11-27 21:07:01 +08:00
|
|
|
meaningful in a given [kind of region](Interfaces.md#regionkindinterfaces)).
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
Operations may also contain regions, enabling hierarchical structures to be
|
|
|
|
represented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operations can represent many different concepts, from higher-level concepts
|
|
|
|
like function definitions, function calls, buffer allocations, view or slices
|
|
|
|
of buffers, and process creation, to lower-level concepts like
|
|
|
|
target-independent arithmetic, target-specific instructions, configuration
|
|
|
|
registers, and logic gates. These different concepts are represented by
|
|
|
|
different operations in MLIR and the set of operations usable in MLIR can be
|
|
|
|
arbitrarily extended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MLIR also provides an extensible framework for transformations on operations,
|
|
|
|
using familiar concepts of compiler [Passes](Passes.md). Enabling an arbitrary
|
|
|
|
set of passes on an arbitrary set of operations results in a significant
|
|
|
|
scaling challenge, since each transformation must potentially take into
|
|
|
|
account the semantics of any operation. MLIR addresses this complexity by
|
|
|
|
allowing operation semantics to be described abstractly using
|
|
|
|
[Traits](Traits.md) and [Interfaces](Interfaces.md), enabling transformations
|
|
|
|
to operate on operations more generically. Traits often describe verification
|
|
|
|
constraints on valid IR, enabling complex invariants to be captured and
|
2020-11-27 21:07:01 +08:00
|
|
|
checked. (see [Op vs
|
|
|
|
Operation](docs/Tutorials/Toy/Ch-2/#op-vs-operation-using-mlir-operations))
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One obvious application of MLIR is to represent an
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
[SSA-based](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_single_assignment_form) IR,
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
like the LLVM core IR, with appropriate choice of Operation Types to define
|
|
|
|
[Modules](#module), [Functions](#functions), Branches, Allocations, and
|
|
|
|
verification constraints to ensure the SSA Dominance property. MLIR includes a
|
|
|
|
'standard' dialect which defines just such structures. However, MLIR is
|
|
|
|
intended to be general enough to represent other compiler-like data
|
|
|
|
structures, such as Abstract Syntax Trees in a language frontend, generated
|
|
|
|
instructions in a target-specific backend, or circuits in a High-Level
|
|
|
|
Synthesis tool.
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's an example of an MLIR module:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2019-01-03 04:32:30 +08:00
|
|
|
// Compute A*B using an implementation of multiply kernel and print the
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
// result using a TensorFlow op. The dimensions of A and B are partially
|
|
|
|
// known. The shapes are assumed to match.
|
2019-01-03 04:32:30 +08:00
|
|
|
func @mul(%A: tensor<100x?xf32>, %B: tensor<?x50xf32>) -> (tensor<100x50xf32>) {
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
// Compute the inner dimension of %A using the dim operation.
|
|
|
|
%n = dim %A, 1 : tensor<100x?xf32>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Allocate addressable "buffers" and copy tensors %A and %B into them.
|
2019-02-21 06:12:21 +08:00
|
|
|
%A_m = alloc(%n) : memref<100x?xf32>
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
tensor_store %A to %A_m : memref<100x?xf32>
|
|
|
|
|
2019-02-21 06:12:21 +08:00
|
|
|
%B_m = alloc(%n) : memref<?x50xf32>
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
tensor_store %B to %B_m : memref<?x50xf32>
|
|
|
|
|
2019-02-06 08:29:25 +08:00
|
|
|
// Call function @multiply passing memrefs as arguments,
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
// and getting returned the result of the multiplication.
|
|
|
|
%C_m = call @multiply(%A_m, %B_m)
|
|
|
|
: (memref<100x?xf32>, memref<?x50xf32>) -> (memref<100x50xf32>)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dealloc %A_m : memref<100x?xf32>
|
|
|
|
dealloc %B_m : memref<?x50xf32>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Load the buffer data into a higher level "tensor" value.
|
|
|
|
%C = tensor_load %C_m : memref<100x50xf32>
|
|
|
|
dealloc %C_m : memref<100x50xf32>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Call TensorFlow built-in function to print the result tensor.
|
|
|
|
"tf.Print"(%C){message: "mul result"}
|
|
|
|
: (tensor<100x50xf32) -> (tensor<100x50xf32>)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return %C : tensor<100x50xf32>
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2019-01-03 04:32:30 +08:00
|
|
|
// A function that multiplies two memrefs and returns the result.
|
|
|
|
func @multiply(%A: memref<100x?xf32>, %B: memref<?x50xf32>)
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
-> (memref<100x50xf32>) {
|
|
|
|
// Compute the inner dimension of %A.
|
|
|
|
%n = dim %A, 1 : memref<100x?xf32>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Allocate memory for the multiplication result.
|
2019-02-21 06:12:21 +08:00
|
|
|
%C = alloc() : memref<100x50xf32>
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Multiplication loop nest.
|
2019-03-26 01:14:34 +08:00
|
|
|
affine.for %i = 0 to 100 {
|
|
|
|
affine.for %j = 0 to 50 {
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
store 0 to %C[%i, %j] : memref<100x50xf32>
|
2019-03-26 01:14:34 +08:00
|
|
|
affine.for %k = 0 to %n {
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
%a_v = load %A[%i, %k] : memref<100x?xf32>
|
|
|
|
%b_v = load %B[%k, %j] : memref<?x50xf32>
|
2019-01-03 04:32:30 +08:00
|
|
|
%prod = mulf %a_v, %b_v : f32
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
%c_v = load %C[%i, %j] : memref<100x50xf32>
|
2019-01-03 04:32:30 +08:00
|
|
|
%sum = addf %c_v, %prod : f32
|
|
|
|
store %sum, %C[%i, %j] : memref<100x50xf32>
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return %C : memref<100x50xf32>
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
## Notation
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MLIR has a simple and unambiguous grammar, allowing it to reliably round-trip
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
through a textual form. This is important for development of the compiler -
|
|
|
|
e.g. for understanding the state of code as it is being transformed and
|
|
|
|
writing test cases.
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This document describes the grammar using
|
|
|
|
[Extended Backus-Naur Form (EBNF)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Backus%E2%80%93Naur_form).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the EBNF grammar used in this document, presented in yellow boxes.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
alternation ::= expr0 | expr1 | expr2 // Either expr0 or expr1 or expr2.
|
|
|
|
sequence ::= expr0 expr1 expr2 // Sequence of expr0 expr1 expr2.
|
|
|
|
repetition0 ::= expr* // 0 or more occurrences.
|
|
|
|
repetition1 ::= expr+ // 1 or more occurrences.
|
|
|
|
optionality ::= expr? // 0 or 1 occurrence.
|
|
|
|
grouping ::= (expr) // Everything inside parens is grouped together.
|
|
|
|
literal ::= `abcd` // Matches the literal `abcd`.
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Code examples are presented in blue boxes.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
// This is an example use of the grammar above:
|
|
|
|
// This matches things like: ba, bana, boma, banana, banoma, bomana...
|
|
|
|
example ::= `b` (`an` | `om`)* `a`
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
### Common syntax
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following core grammar productions are used in this document:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
// TODO: Clarify the split between lexing (tokens) and parsing (grammar).
|
|
|
|
digit ::= [0-9]
|
|
|
|
hex_digit ::= [0-9a-fA-F]
|
|
|
|
letter ::= [a-zA-Z]
|
|
|
|
id-punct ::= [$._-]
|
|
|
|
|
2019-02-08 00:36:50 +08:00
|
|
|
integer-literal ::= decimal-literal | hexadecimal-literal
|
|
|
|
decimal-literal ::= digit+
|
|
|
|
hexadecimal-literal ::= `0x` hex_digit+
|
2019-11-26 09:53:20 +08:00
|
|
|
float-literal ::= [-+]?[0-9]+[.][0-9]*([eE][-+]?[0-9]+)?
|
2020-07-07 16:35:23 +08:00
|
|
|
string-literal ::= `"` [^"\n\f\v\r]* `"` TODO: define escaping rules
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not listed here, but MLIR does support comments. They use standard BCPL syntax,
|
|
|
|
starting with a `//` and going until the end of the line.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
### Identifiers and keywords
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
// Identifiers
|
2019-02-27 08:43:12 +08:00
|
|
|
bare-id ::= (letter|[_]) (letter|digit|[_$.])*
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
bare-id-list ::= bare-id (`,` bare-id)*
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
value-id ::= `%` suffix-id
|
2019-12-05 04:05:52 +08:00
|
|
|
suffix-id ::= (digit+ | ((letter|id-punct) (letter|id-punct|digit)*))
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-05 04:05:52 +08:00
|
|
|
symbol-ref-id ::= `@` (suffix-id | string-literal)
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
value-id-list ::= value-id (`,` value-id)*
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
// Uses of value, e.g. in an operand list to an operation.
|
|
|
|
value-use ::= value-id
|
|
|
|
value-use-list ::= value-use (`,` value-use)*
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
Identifiers name entities such as values, types and functions, and are
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
chosen by the writer of MLIR code. Identifiers may be descriptive (e.g.
|
|
|
|
`%batch_size`, `@matmul`), or may be non-descriptive when they are
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
auto-generated (e.g. `%23`, `@func42`). Identifier names for values may be
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
used in an MLIR text file but are not persisted as part of the IR - the printer
|
|
|
|
will give them anonymous names like `%42`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MLIR guarantees identifiers never collide with keywords by prefixing identifiers
|
2019-04-06 10:36:42 +08:00
|
|
|
with a sigil (e.g. `%`, `#`, `@`, `^`, `!`). In certain unambiguous contexts
|
|
|
|
(e.g. affine expressions), identifiers are not prefixed, for brevity. New
|
|
|
|
keywords may be added to future versions of MLIR without danger of collision
|
|
|
|
with existing identifiers.
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
Value identifiers are only [in scope](#value-scoping) for the (nested)
|
|
|
|
region in which they are defined and cannot be accessed or referenced
|
|
|
|
outside of that region. Argument identifiers in mapping functions are
|
|
|
|
in scope for the mapping body. Particular operations may further limit
|
|
|
|
which identifiers are in scope in their regions. For instance, the
|
|
|
|
scope of values in a region with [SSA control flow
|
|
|
|
semantics](#control-flow-and-ssacfg-regions) is constrained according
|
|
|
|
to the standard definition of [SSA
|
|
|
|
dominance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominator_\(graph_theory\)). Another
|
|
|
|
example is the [IsolatedFromAbove trait](Traits.md#isolatedfromabove),
|
|
|
|
which restricts directly accessing values defined in containing
|
|
|
|
regions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Function identifiers and mapping identifiers are associated with
|
|
|
|
[Symbols](SymbolsAndSymbolTables) and have scoping rules dependent on
|
|
|
|
symbol attributes.
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-08-23 06:53:41 +08:00
|
|
|
## Dialects
|
|
|
|
|
2019-11-16 01:48:54 +08:00
|
|
|
Dialects are the mechanism by which to engage with and extend the MLIR
|
2019-08-23 06:53:41 +08:00
|
|
|
ecosystem. They allow for defining new [operations](#operations), as well as
|
|
|
|
[attributes](#attributes) and [types](#type-system). Each dialect is given a
|
|
|
|
unique `namespace` that is prefixed to each defined attribute/operation/type.
|
|
|
|
For example, the [Affine dialect](Dialects/Affine.md) defines the namespace:
|
|
|
|
`affine`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MLIR allows for multiple dialects, even those outside of the main tree, to
|
|
|
|
co-exist together within one module. Dialects are produced and consumed by
|
|
|
|
certain passes. MLIR provides a [framework](DialectConversion.md) to convert
|
2019-11-16 01:48:54 +08:00
|
|
|
between, and within, different dialects.
|
2019-08-23 06:53:41 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A few of the dialects supported by MLIR:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* [Affine dialect](Dialects/Affine.md)
|
|
|
|
* [GPU dialect](Dialects/GPU.md)
|
|
|
|
* [LLVM dialect](Dialects/LLVM.md)
|
|
|
|
* [SPIR-V dialect](Dialects/SPIR-V.md)
|
|
|
|
* [Standard dialect](Dialects/Standard.md)
|
|
|
|
* [Vector dialect](Dialects/Vector.md)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Target specific operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dialects provide a modular way in which targets can expose target-specific
|
|
|
|
operations directly through to MLIR. As an example, some targets go through
|
|
|
|
LLVM. LLVM has a rich set of intrinsics for certain target-independent
|
|
|
|
operations (e.g. addition with overflow check) as well as providing access to
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
target-specific operations for the targets it supports (e.g. vector
|
|
|
|
permutation operations). LLVM intrinsics in MLIR are represented via
|
|
|
|
operations that start with an "llvm." name.
|
2019-08-23 06:53:41 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2019-08-23 06:53:41 +08:00
|
|
|
// LLVM: %x = call {i16, i1} @llvm.sadd.with.overflow.i16(i16 %a, i16 %b)
|
|
|
|
%x:2 = "llvm.sadd.with.overflow.i16"(%a, %b) : (i16, i16) -> (i16, i1)
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These operations only work when targeting LLVM as a backend (e.g. for CPUs and
|
|
|
|
GPUs), and are required to align with the LLVM definition of these intrinsics.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
## Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-12-05 04:05:52 +08:00
|
|
|
operation ::= op-result-list? (generic-operation | custom-operation)
|
|
|
|
trailing-location?
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
generic-operation ::= string-literal `(` value-use-list? `)` successor-list?
|
2021-02-05 05:27:25 +08:00
|
|
|
(`(` region-list `)`)? dictionary-attribute? `:` function-type
|
2019-12-05 04:05:52 +08:00
|
|
|
custom-operation ::= bare-id custom-operation-format
|
|
|
|
op-result-list ::= op-result (`,` op-result)* `=`
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
op-result ::= value-id (`:` integer-literal)
|
2019-12-05 04:05:52 +08:00
|
|
|
successor-list ::= successor (`,` successor)*
|
|
|
|
successor ::= caret-id (`:` bb-arg-list)?
|
|
|
|
region-list ::= region (`,` region)*
|
|
|
|
trailing-location ::= (`loc` `(` location `)`)?
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
MLIR introduces a uniform concept called _operations_ to enable describing
|
|
|
|
many different levels of abstractions and computations. Operations in MLIR are
|
|
|
|
fully extensible (there is no fixed list of operations) and have
|
|
|
|
application-specific semantics. For example, MLIR supports [target-independent
|
|
|
|
operations](Dialects/Standard.md#memory-operations), [affine
|
|
|
|
operations](Dialects/Affine.md), and [target-specific machine
|
|
|
|
operations](#target-specific-operations).
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The internal representation of an operation is simple: an operation is
|
|
|
|
identified by a unique string (e.g. `dim`, `tf.Conv2d`, `x86.repmovsb`,
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
`ppc.eieio`, etc), can return zero or more results, take zero or more
|
2021-02-05 08:17:45 +08:00
|
|
|
operands, has a dictionary of [attributes](#attributes), has zero or more
|
|
|
|
successors, and zero or more enclosed [regions](#regions). The generic printing
|
|
|
|
form includes all these elements literally, with a function type to indicate the
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
types of the results and operands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
// An operation that produces two results.
|
|
|
|
// The results of %result can be accessed via the <name> `#` <opNo> syntax.
|
|
|
|
%result:2 = "foo_div"() : () -> (f32, i32)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Pretty form that defines a unique name for each result.
|
|
|
|
%foo, %bar = "foo_div"() : () -> (f32, i32)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Invoke a TensorFlow function called tf.scramble with two inputs
|
|
|
|
// and an attribute "fruit".
|
2021-02-05 08:17:45 +08:00
|
|
|
%2 = "tf.scramble"(%result#0, %bar) {fruit = "banana"} : (f32, i32) -> f32
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to the basic syntax above, dialects may register known operations.
|
|
|
|
This allows those dialects to support _custom assembly form_ for parsing and
|
|
|
|
printing operations. In the operation sets listed below, we show both forms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Terminator Operations
|
|
|
|
|
2019-11-16 01:48:54 +08:00
|
|
|
These are a special category of operations that *must* terminate a block, e.g.
|
|
|
|
[branches](Dialects/Standard.md#terminator-operations). These operations may
|
|
|
|
also have a list of successors ([blocks](#blocks) and their arguments).
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
// Branch to ^bb1 or ^bb2 depending on the condition %cond.
|
|
|
|
// Pass value %v to ^bb2, but not to ^bb1.
|
|
|
|
"cond_br"(%cond)[^bb1, ^bb2(%v : index)] : (i1) -> ()
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Module
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2021-02-05 05:27:25 +08:00
|
|
|
module ::= `module` symbol-ref-id? (`attributes` dictionary-attribute)? region
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
An MLIR Module represents a top-level container operation. It contains a single
|
|
|
|
[SSACFG region](#control-flow-and-ssacfg-regions) containing a single block
|
|
|
|
which can contain any operations. Operations within this region cannot
|
|
|
|
implicitly capture values defined outside the module, i.e. Modules are
|
|
|
|
[IsolatedFromAbove](Traits.md#isolatedfromabove). Modules have an optional
|
|
|
|
[symbol name](SymbolsAndSymbolTables.md) which can be used to refer to them in
|
|
|
|
operations.
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Functions
|
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
An MLIR Function is an operation with a name containing a single [SSACFG
|
2020-07-22 05:57:49 +08:00
|
|
|
region](#control-flow-and-ssacfg-regions). Operations within this region
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
cannot implicitly capture values defined outside of the function,
|
|
|
|
i.e. Functions are [IsolatedFromAbove](Traits.md#isolatedfromabove). All
|
|
|
|
external references must use function arguments or attributes that establish a
|
|
|
|
symbolic connection (e.g. symbols referenced by name via a string attribute
|
|
|
|
like [SymbolRefAttr](#symbol-reference-attribute)):
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
function ::= `func` function-signature function-attributes? function-body?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function-signature ::= symbol-ref-id `(` argument-list `)`
|
2019-10-19 07:02:56 +08:00
|
|
|
(`->` function-result-list)?
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
argument-list ::= (named-argument (`,` named-argument)*) | /*empty*/
|
2021-02-05 05:27:25 +08:00
|
|
|
argument-list ::= (type dictionary-attribute? (`,` type dictionary-attribute?)*)
|
|
|
|
| /*empty*/
|
|
|
|
named-argument ::= value-id `:` type dictionary-attribute?
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-10-19 07:02:56 +08:00
|
|
|
function-result-list ::= function-result-list-parens
|
|
|
|
| non-function-type
|
|
|
|
function-result-list-parens ::= `(` `)`
|
|
|
|
| `(` function-result-list-no-parens `)`
|
|
|
|
function-result-list-no-parens ::= function-result (`,` function-result)*
|
2021-02-05 05:27:25 +08:00
|
|
|
function-result ::= type dictionary-attribute?
|
2019-10-19 07:02:56 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2021-02-05 05:27:25 +08:00
|
|
|
function-attributes ::= `attributes` dictionary-attribute
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
function-body ::= region
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
An external function declaration (used when referring to a function declared
|
|
|
|
in some other module) has no body. While the MLIR textual form provides a nice
|
|
|
|
inline syntax for function arguments, they are internally represented as
|
|
|
|
"block arguments" to the first block in the region.
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
Only dialect attribute names may be specified in the attribute dictionaries
|
|
|
|
for function arguments, results, or the function itself.
|
2019-11-19 14:49:49 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
Examples:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
// External function definitions.
|
|
|
|
func @abort()
|
|
|
|
func @scribble(i32, i64, memref<? x 128 x f32, #layout_map0>) -> f64
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// A function that returns its argument twice:
|
|
|
|
func @count(%x: i64) -> (i64, i64)
|
|
|
|
attributes {fruit: "banana"} {
|
|
|
|
return %x, %x: i64, i64
|
|
|
|
}
|
2019-11-19 14:49:49 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// A function with an argument attribute
|
|
|
|
func @example_fn_arg(%x: i32 {swift.self = unit})
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// A function with a result attribute
|
|
|
|
func @example_fn_result() -> (f64 {dialectName.attrName = 0 : i64})
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// A function with an attribute
|
|
|
|
func @example_fn_attr() attributes {dialectName.attrName = false}
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Blocks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-12-05 04:05:52 +08:00
|
|
|
block ::= block-label operation+
|
|
|
|
block-label ::= block-id block-arg-list? `:`
|
|
|
|
block-id ::= caret-id
|
|
|
|
caret-id ::= `^` suffix-id
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
value-id-and-type ::= value-id `:` type
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Non-empty list of names and types.
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
value-id-and-type-list ::= value-id-and-type (`,` value-id-and-type)*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
block-arg-list ::= `(` value-id-and-type-list? `)`
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A *Block* is an ordered list of operations, concluding with a single
|
|
|
|
[terminator operation](#terminator-operations). In [SSACFG
|
|
|
|
regions](#control-flow-and-ssacfg-regions), each block represents a compiler
|
2020-11-27 21:07:01 +08:00
|
|
|
[basic block](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_block) where instructions
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
inside the block are executed in order and terminator operations implement
|
|
|
|
control flow branches between basic blocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blocks in MLIR take a list of block arguments, notated in a function-like
|
|
|
|
way. Block arguments are bound to values specified by the semantics of
|
|
|
|
individual operations. Block arguments of the entry block of a region are also
|
|
|
|
arguments to the region and the values bound to these arguments are determined
|
|
|
|
by the semantics of the containing operation. Block arguments of other blocks
|
|
|
|
are determined by the semantics of terminator operations, e.g. Branches, which
|
|
|
|
have the block as a successor. In regions with [control
|
|
|
|
flow](#control-flow-and-ssacfg-regions), MLIR leverages this structure to
|
|
|
|
implicitly represent the passage of control-flow dependent values without the
|
|
|
|
complex nuances of PHI nodes in traditional SSA representations. Note that
|
|
|
|
values which are not control-flow dependent can be referenced directly and do
|
|
|
|
not need to be passed through block arguments.
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a simple example function showing branches, returns, and block
|
|
|
|
arguments:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
func @simple(i64, i1) -> i64 {
|
|
|
|
^bb0(%a: i64, %cond: i1): // Code dominated by ^bb0 may refer to %a
|
|
|
|
cond_br %cond, ^bb1, ^bb2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^bb1:
|
|
|
|
br ^bb3(%a: i64) // Branch passes %a as the argument
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^bb2:
|
|
|
|
%b = addi %a, %a : i64
|
|
|
|
br ^bb3(%b: i64) // Branch passes %b as the argument
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// ^bb3 receives an argument, named %c, from predecessors
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
// and passes it on to bb4 along with %a. %a is referenced
|
|
|
|
// directly from its defining operation and is not passed through
|
|
|
|
// an argument of ^bb3.
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
^bb3(%c: i64):
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
br ^bb4(%c, %a : i64, i64)
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^bb4(%d : i64, %e : i64):
|
|
|
|
%0 = addi %d, %e : i64
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
return %0 : i64 // Return is also a terminator.
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
**Context:** The "block argument" representation eliminates a number
|
|
|
|
of special cases from the IR compared to traditional "PHI nodes are
|
|
|
|
operations" SSA IRs (like LLVM). For example, the [parallel copy
|
|
|
|
semantics](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.524.5461&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
|
|
|
|
of SSA is immediately apparent, and function arguments are no longer a
|
|
|
|
special case: they become arguments to the entry block [[more
|
|
|
|
rationale](Rationale/Rationale.md#block-arguments-vs-phi-nodes)]. Blocks
|
|
|
|
are also a fundamental concept that cannot be represented by
|
|
|
|
operations because values defined in an operation cannot be accessed
|
|
|
|
outside the operation.
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Regions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Definition
|
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
A region is an ordered list of MLIR [Blocks](#blocks). The semantics within a
|
|
|
|
region is not imposed by the IR. Instead, the containing operation defines the
|
|
|
|
semantics of the regions it contains. MLIR currently defines two kinds of
|
|
|
|
regions: [SSACFG regions](#control-flow-and-ssacfg-regions), which describe
|
|
|
|
control flow between blocks, and [Graph regions](#graph-regions), which do not
|
|
|
|
require control flow between block. The kinds of regions within an operation
|
|
|
|
are described using the
|
2020-11-27 21:07:01 +08:00
|
|
|
[RegionKindInterface](Interfaces.md#regionkindinterfaces).
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
Regions do not have a name or an address, only the blocks contained in a
|
|
|
|
region do. Regions must be contained within operations and have no type or
|
|
|
|
attributes. The first block in the region is a special block called the 'entry
|
|
|
|
block'. The arguments to the entry block are also the arguments of the region
|
|
|
|
itself. The entry block cannot be listed as a successor of any other
|
|
|
|
block. The syntax for a region is as follows:
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-12-05 04:05:52 +08:00
|
|
|
region ::= `{` block* `}`
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
A function body is an example of a region: it consists of a CFG of blocks and
|
|
|
|
has additional semantic restrictions that other types of regions may not have.
|
|
|
|
For example, in a function body, block terminators must either branch to a
|
|
|
|
different block, or return from a function where the types of the `return`
|
|
|
|
arguments must match the result types of the function signature. Similarly,
|
|
|
|
the function arguments must match the types and count of the region arguments.
|
|
|
|
In general, operations with regions can define these correspondances
|
|
|
|
arbitrarily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Value Scoping
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regions provide hierarchical encapsulation of programs: it is impossible to
|
|
|
|
reference, i.e. branch to, a block which is not in the same region as the
|
|
|
|
source of the reference, i.e. a terminator operation. Similarly, regions
|
|
|
|
provides a natural scoping for value visibility: values defined in a region
|
|
|
|
don't escape to the enclosing region, if any. By default, operations inside a
|
|
|
|
region can reference values defined outside of the region whenever it would
|
|
|
|
have been legal for operands of the enclosing operation to reference those
|
|
|
|
values, but this can be restricted using traits, such as
|
|
|
|
[OpTrait::IsolatedFromAbove](Traits.md#isolatedfromabove), or a custom
|
|
|
|
verifier.
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
Example:
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
|
|
|
"any_op"(%a) ({ // if %a is in-scope in the containing region...
|
|
|
|
// then %a is in-scope here too.
|
|
|
|
%new_value = "another_op"(%a) : (i64) -> (i64)
|
|
|
|
}) : (i64) -> (i64)
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MLIR defines a generalized 'hierarchical dominance' concept that operates
|
|
|
|
across hierarchy and defines whether a value is 'in scope' and can be used by
|
|
|
|
a particular operation. Whether a value can be used by another operation in
|
|
|
|
the same region is defined by the kind of region. A value defined in a region
|
|
|
|
can be used by an operation which has a parent in the same region, if and only
|
|
|
|
if the parent could use the value. A value defined by an argument to a region
|
|
|
|
can always be used by any operation deeply contained in the region. A value
|
|
|
|
defined in a region can never be used outside of the region.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Control Flow and SSACFG Regions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In MLIR, control flow semantics of a region is indicated by
|
2020-11-27 21:07:01 +08:00
|
|
|
[RegionKind::SSACFG](Interfaces.md#regionkindinterfaces). Informally, these
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
regions support semantics where operations in a region 'execute
|
|
|
|
sequentially'. Before an operation executes, its operands have well-defined
|
|
|
|
values. After an operation executes, the operands have the same values and
|
|
|
|
results also have well-defined values. After an operation executes, the next
|
|
|
|
operation in the block executes until the operation is the terminator operation
|
|
|
|
at the end of a block, in which case some other operation will execute. The
|
|
|
|
determination of the next instruction to execute is the 'passing of control
|
|
|
|
flow'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In general, when control flow is passed to an operation, MLIR does not
|
|
|
|
restrict when control flow enters or exits the regions contained in that
|
|
|
|
operation. However, when control flow enters a region, it always begins in the
|
|
|
|
first block of the region, called the *entry* block. Terminator operations
|
|
|
|
ending each block represent control flow by explicitly specifying the
|
|
|
|
successor blocks of the block. Control flow can only pass to one of the
|
|
|
|
specified successor blocks as in a `branch` operation, or back to the
|
|
|
|
containing operation as in a `return` operation. Terminator operations without
|
|
|
|
successors can only pass control back to the containing operation. Within
|
|
|
|
these restrictions, the particular semantics of terminator operations is
|
|
|
|
determined by the specific dialect operations involved. Blocks (other than the
|
|
|
|
entry block) that are not listed as a successor of a terminator operation are
|
|
|
|
defined to be unreachable and can be removed without affecting the semantics
|
|
|
|
of the containing operation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although control flow always enters a region through the entry block, control
|
|
|
|
flow may exit a region through any block with an appropriate terminator. The
|
|
|
|
standard dialect leverages this capability to define operations with
|
|
|
|
Single-Entry-Multiple-Exit (SEME) regions, possibly flowing through different
|
|
|
|
blocks in the region and exiting through any block with a `return`
|
|
|
|
operation. This behavior is similar to that of a function body in most
|
|
|
|
programming languages. In addition, control flow may also not reach the end of
|
|
|
|
a block or region, for example if a function call does not return.
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
func @accelerator_compute(i64, i1) -> i64 { // An SSACFG region
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
^bb0(%a: i64, %cond: i1): // Code dominated by ^bb0 may refer to %a
|
|
|
|
cond_br %cond, ^bb1, ^bb2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^bb1:
|
|
|
|
// This def for %value does not dominate ^bb2
|
|
|
|
%value = "op.convert"(%a) : (i64) -> i64
|
|
|
|
br ^bb3(%a: i64) // Branch passes %a as the argument
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^bb2:
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
accelerator.launch() { // An SSACFG region
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
^bb0:
|
2019-09-26 02:57:13 +08:00
|
|
|
// Region of code nested under "accelerator.launch", it can reference %a but
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
// not %value.
|
|
|
|
%new_value = "accelerator.do_something"(%a) : (i64) -> ()
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// %new_value cannot be referenced outside of the region
|
2019-09-26 02:57:13 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^bb3:
|
|
|
|
...
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
#### Operations with Multiple Regions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An operation containing multiple regions also completely determines the
|
|
|
|
semantics of those regions. In particular, when control flow is passed to an
|
|
|
|
operation, it may transfer control flow to any contained region. When control
|
|
|
|
flow exits a region and is returned to the containing operation, the
|
|
|
|
containing operation may pass control flow to any region in the same
|
|
|
|
operation. An operation may also pass control flow to multiple contained
|
|
|
|
regions concurrently. An operation may also pass control flow into regions
|
|
|
|
that were specified in other operations, in particular those that defined the
|
|
|
|
values or symbols the given operation uses as in a call operation. This
|
|
|
|
passage of control is generally independent of passage of control flow through
|
|
|
|
the basic blocks of the containing region.
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Closure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regions allow defining an operation that creates a closure, for example by
|
|
|
|
“boxing” the body of the region into a value they produce. It remains up to the
|
|
|
|
operation to define its semantics. Note that if an operation triggers
|
|
|
|
asynchronous execution of the region, it is under the responsibility of the
|
|
|
|
operation caller to wait for the region to be executed guaranteeing that any
|
|
|
|
directly used values remain live.
|
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
### Graph Regions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In MLIR, graph-like semantics in a region is indicated by
|
2020-11-27 21:07:01 +08:00
|
|
|
[RegionKind::Graph](Interfaces.md#regionkindinterfaces). Graph regions are
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
appropriate for concurrent semantics without control flow, or for modeling
|
|
|
|
generic directed graph data structures. Graph regions are appropriate for
|
|
|
|
representing cyclic relationships between coupled values where there is no
|
|
|
|
fundamental order to the relationships. For instance, operations in a graph
|
|
|
|
region may represent independent threads of control with values representing
|
|
|
|
streams of data. As usual in MLIR, the particular semantics of a region is
|
|
|
|
completely determined by its containing operation. Graph regions may only
|
|
|
|
contain a single basic block (the entry block).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Rationale:** Currently graph regions are arbitrarily limited to a single
|
|
|
|
basic block, although there is no particular semantic reason for this
|
|
|
|
limitation. This limitation has been added to make it easier to stabilize the
|
|
|
|
pass infrastructure and commonly used passes for processing graph regions to
|
|
|
|
properly handle feedback loops. Multi-block regions may be allowed in the
|
|
|
|
future if use cases that require it arise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In graph regions, MLIR operations naturally represent nodes, while each MLIR
|
|
|
|
value represents a multi-edge connecting a single source node and multiple
|
|
|
|
destination nodes. All values defined in the region as results of operations
|
|
|
|
are in scope within the region and can be accessed by any other operation in
|
|
|
|
the region. In graph regions, the order of operations within a block and the
|
|
|
|
order of blocks in a region is not semantically meaningful and non-terminator
|
|
|
|
operations may be freely reordered, for instance, by canonicalization. Other
|
|
|
|
kinds of graphs, such as graphs with multiple source nodes and multiple
|
|
|
|
destination nodes, can also be represented by representing graph edges as MLIR
|
|
|
|
operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that cycles can occur within a single block in a graph region, or between
|
|
|
|
basic blocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```mlir
|
|
|
|
"test.graph_region"() ({ // A Graph region
|
|
|
|
%1 = "op1"(%1, %3) : (i32, i32) -> (i32) // OK: %1, %3 allowed here
|
|
|
|
%2 = "test.ssacfg_region"() ({
|
|
|
|
%5 = "op2"(%1, %2, %3, %4) : (i32, i32, i32, i32) -> (i32) // OK: %1, %2, %3, %4 all defined in the containing region
|
|
|
|
}) : () -> (i32)
|
|
|
|
%3 = "op2"(%1, %4) : (i32, i32) -> (i32) // OK: %4 allowed here
|
|
|
|
%4 = "op3"(%1) : (i32) -> (i32)
|
|
|
|
}) : () -> ()
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-24 01:08:42 +08:00
|
|
|
### Arguments and Results
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The arguments of the first block of a region are treated as arguments of the
|
|
|
|
region. The source of these arguments is defined by the semantics of the parent
|
|
|
|
operation. They may correspond to some of the values the operation itself uses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regions produce a (possibly empty) list of values. The operation semantics
|
|
|
|
defines the relation between the region results and the operation results.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
## Type System
|
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
Each value in MLIR has a type defined by the type system below. There are a
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
number of primitive types (like integers) and also aggregate types for tensors
|
2020-12-04 09:22:29 +08:00
|
|
|
and memory buffers. MLIR [builtin types](#builtin-types) do not include
|
2019-11-16 01:48:54 +08:00
|
|
|
structures, arrays, or dictionaries.
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-11-16 01:48:54 +08:00
|
|
|
MLIR has an open type system (i.e. there is no fixed list of types), and types
|
|
|
|
may have application-specific semantics. For example, MLIR supports a set of
|
|
|
|
[dialect types](#dialect-types).
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2020-12-04 09:22:29 +08:00
|
|
|
type ::= type-alias | dialect-type | builtin-type
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
type-list-no-parens ::= type (`,` type)*
|
|
|
|
type-list-parens ::= `(` `)`
|
|
|
|
| `(` type-list-no-parens `)`
|
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
// This is a common way to refer to a value with a specified type.
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
ssa-use-and-type ::= ssa-use `:` type
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Non-empty list of names and types.
|
|
|
|
ssa-use-and-type-list ::= ssa-use-and-type (`,` ssa-use-and-type)*
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Type Aliases
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
type-alias-def ::= '!' alias-name '=' 'type' type
|
|
|
|
type-alias ::= '!' alias-name
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MLIR supports defining named aliases for types. A type alias is an identifier
|
|
|
|
that can be used in the place of the type that it defines. These aliases *must*
|
|
|
|
be defined before their uses. Alias names may not contain a '.', since those
|
|
|
|
names are reserved for [dialect types](#dialect-types).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
!avx_m128 = type vector<4 x f32>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Using the original type.
|
|
|
|
"foo"(%x) : vector<4 x f32> -> ()
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Using the type alias.
|
|
|
|
"foo"(%x) : !avx_m128 -> ()
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
### Dialect Types
|
2019-08-23 06:53:41 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similarly to operations, dialects may define custom extensions to the type
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
system.
|
2019-08-23 06:53:41 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-11-26 09:53:20 +08:00
|
|
|
dialect-namespace ::= bare-id
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
opaque-dialect-item ::= dialect-namespace '<' string-literal '>'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pretty-dialect-item ::= dialect-namespace '.' pretty-dialect-item-lead-ident
|
|
|
|
pretty-dialect-item-body?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pretty-dialect-item-lead-ident ::= '[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9._]*'
|
|
|
|
pretty-dialect-item-body ::= '<' pretty-dialect-item-contents+ '>'
|
|
|
|
pretty-dialect-item-contents ::= pretty-dialect-item-body
|
|
|
|
| '(' pretty-dialect-item-contents+ ')'
|
|
|
|
| '[' pretty-dialect-item-contents+ ']'
|
|
|
|
| '{' pretty-dialect-item-contents+ '}'
|
2019-08-23 06:53:41 +08:00
|
|
|
| '[^[<({>\])}\0]+'
|
2019-11-26 09:53:20 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dialect-type ::= '!' opaque-dialect-item
|
|
|
|
dialect-type ::= '!' pretty-dialect-item
|
2019-08-23 06:53:41 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dialect types can be specified in a verbose form, e.g. like this:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2019-08-23 06:53:41 +08:00
|
|
|
// LLVM type that wraps around llvm IR types.
|
|
|
|
!llvm<"i32*">
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Tensor flow string type.
|
|
|
|
!tf.string
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Complex type
|
|
|
|
!foo<"something<abcd>">
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Even more complex type
|
|
|
|
!foo<"something<a%%123^^^>>>">
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dialect types that are simple enough can use the pretty format, which is a
|
|
|
|
lighter weight syntax that is equivalent to the above forms:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2019-08-23 06:53:41 +08:00
|
|
|
// Tensor flow string type.
|
|
|
|
!tf.string
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Complex type
|
|
|
|
!foo.something<abcd>
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sufficiently complex dialect types are required to use the verbose form for
|
|
|
|
generality. For example, the more complex type shown above wouldn't be valid in
|
|
|
|
the lighter syntax: `!foo.something<a%%123^^^>>>` because it contains characters
|
|
|
|
that are not allowed in the lighter syntax, as well as unbalanced `<>`
|
|
|
|
characters.
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-19 12:52:37 +08:00
|
|
|
See [here](Tutorials/DefiningAttributesAndTypes.md) to learn how to define dialect types.
|
2019-08-23 06:53:41 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2020-12-04 09:22:29 +08:00
|
|
|
### Builtin Types
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2020-12-04 09:22:29 +08:00
|
|
|
Builtin types are a core set of [dialect types](#dialect-types) that are defined
|
|
|
|
in a builtin dialect and thus available to all users of MLIR.
|
2019-01-03 04:32:30 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2020-12-04 09:22:29 +08:00
|
|
|
builtin-type ::= complex-type
|
2019-02-06 03:47:02 +08:00
|
|
|
| float-type
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
| function-type
|
|
|
|
| index-type
|
|
|
|
| integer-type
|
2019-02-06 03:47:02 +08:00
|
|
|
| memref-type
|
2019-04-28 09:35:04 +08:00
|
|
|
| none-type
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
| tensor-type
|
|
|
|
| tuple-type
|
|
|
|
| vector-type
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
#### Complex Type
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
2019-01-08 10:42:04 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
complex-type ::= `complex` `<` type `>`
|
2019-01-08 10:42:04 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
The value of `complex` type represents a complex number with a parameterized
|
|
|
|
element type, which is composed of a real and imaginary value of that element
|
|
|
|
type. The element must be a floating point or integer scalar type.
|
2019-01-08 10:42:04 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
Examples:
|
2019-01-08 10:42:04 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
complex<f32>
|
|
|
|
complex<i32>
|
|
|
|
```
|
2019-01-08 10:42:04 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
#### Floating Point Types
|
2019-01-08 10:42:04 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
2019-01-08 10:42:04 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
// Floating point.
|
2021-01-15 23:29:37 +08:00
|
|
|
float-type ::= `f16` | `bf16` | `f32` | `f64` | `f80` | `f128`
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-01-08 01:59:55 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
MLIR supports float types of certain widths that are widely used as indicated
|
|
|
|
above.
|
2019-01-08 01:59:55 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
#### Function Type
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-03-20 01:59:02 +08:00
|
|
|
// MLIR functions can return multiple values.
|
2019-02-06 03:47:02 +08:00
|
|
|
function-result-type ::= type-list-parens
|
|
|
|
| non-function-type
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function-type ::= type-list-parens `->` function-result-type
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-21 09:41:38 +08:00
|
|
|
MLIR supports first-class functions: for example, the
|
2020-11-27 21:07:01 +08:00
|
|
|
[`constant` operation](Dialects/Standard.md#stdconstant-constantop) produces the
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
address of a function as a value. This value may be passed to and
|
2019-08-21 09:41:38 +08:00
|
|
|
returned from functions, merged across control flow boundaries with
|
|
|
|
[block arguments](#blocks), and called with the
|
|
|
|
[`call_indirect` operation](Dialects/Standard.md#call-indirect-operation).
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-01-08 01:59:55 +08:00
|
|
|
Function types are also used to indicate the arguments and results of
|
|
|
|
[operations](#operations).
|
Enable arithmetics for index types.
Arithmetic and comparison instructions are necessary to implement, e.g.,
control flow when lowering MLFunctions to CFGFunctions. (While it is possible
to replace some of the arithmetics by affine_apply instructions for loop
bounds, it is still necessary for loop bounds checking, steps, if-conditions,
non-trivial memref subscripts, etc.) Furthermore, working with indirect
accesses in, e.g., lookup tables for large embeddings, may require operating on
tensors of indexes. For example, the equivalents to C code "LUT[Index[i]]" or
"ResultIndex[i] = i + j" where i, j are loop induction variables require the
arithmetics on indices as well as the possibility to operate on tensors
thereof. Allow arithmetic and comparison operations to apply to index types by
declaring them integer-like. Allow tensors whose element type is index for
indirection purposes.
The absence of vectors with "index" element type is explicitly tested, but the
only justification for this restriction in the CL introducing the test is
"because we don't need them". Do NOT enable vectors of index types, although
it makes vector and tensor types inconsistent with respect to allowed element
types.
PiperOrigin-RevId: 220614055
2018-11-08 20:04:32 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
#### Index Type
|
Enable arithmetics for index types.
Arithmetic and comparison instructions are necessary to implement, e.g.,
control flow when lowering MLFunctions to CFGFunctions. (While it is possible
to replace some of the arithmetics by affine_apply instructions for loop
bounds, it is still necessary for loop bounds checking, steps, if-conditions,
non-trivial memref subscripts, etc.) Furthermore, working with indirect
accesses in, e.g., lookup tables for large embeddings, may require operating on
tensors of indexes. For example, the equivalents to C code "LUT[Index[i]]" or
"ResultIndex[i] = i + j" where i, j are loop induction variables require the
arithmetics on indices as well as the possibility to operate on tensors
thereof. Allow arithmetic and comparison operations to apply to index types by
declaring them integer-like. Allow tensors whose element type is index for
indirection purposes.
The absence of vectors with "index" element type is explicitly tested, but the
only justification for this restriction in the CL introducing the test is
"because we don't need them". Do NOT enable vectors of index types, although
it makes vector and tensor types inconsistent with respect to allowed element
types.
PiperOrigin-RevId: 220614055
2018-11-08 20:04:32 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
Enable arithmetics for index types.
Arithmetic and comparison instructions are necessary to implement, e.g.,
control flow when lowering MLFunctions to CFGFunctions. (While it is possible
to replace some of the arithmetics by affine_apply instructions for loop
bounds, it is still necessary for loop bounds checking, steps, if-conditions,
non-trivial memref subscripts, etc.) Furthermore, working with indirect
accesses in, e.g., lookup tables for large embeddings, may require operating on
tensors of indexes. For example, the equivalents to C code "LUT[Index[i]]" or
"ResultIndex[i] = i + j" where i, j are loop induction variables require the
arithmetics on indices as well as the possibility to operate on tensors
thereof. Allow arithmetic and comparison operations to apply to index types by
declaring them integer-like. Allow tensors whose element type is index for
indirection purposes.
The absence of vectors with "index" element type is explicitly tested, but the
only justification for this restriction in the CL introducing the test is
"because we don't need them". Do NOT enable vectors of index types, although
it makes vector and tensor types inconsistent with respect to allowed element
types.
PiperOrigin-RevId: 220614055
2018-11-08 20:04:32 +08:00
|
|
|
// Target word-sized integer.
|
|
|
|
index-type ::= `index`
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-01-08 01:59:55 +08:00
|
|
|
The `index` type is a signless integer whose size is equal to the natural
|
2020-11-27 21:07:01 +08:00
|
|
|
machine word of the target
|
|
|
|
([rationale](Rationale/Rationale.md#integer-signedness-semantics)) and is used
|
|
|
|
by the affine constructs in MLIR. Unlike fixed-size integers, it cannot be used
|
|
|
|
as an element of vector
|
|
|
|
([rationale](Rationale/Rationale.md#index-type-disallowed-in-vector-types)).
|
2019-01-08 01:59:55 +08:00
|
|
|
|
Enable arithmetics for index types.
Arithmetic and comparison instructions are necessary to implement, e.g.,
control flow when lowering MLFunctions to CFGFunctions. (While it is possible
to replace some of the arithmetics by affine_apply instructions for loop
bounds, it is still necessary for loop bounds checking, steps, if-conditions,
non-trivial memref subscripts, etc.) Furthermore, working with indirect
accesses in, e.g., lookup tables for large embeddings, may require operating on
tensors of indexes. For example, the equivalents to C code "LUT[Index[i]]" or
"ResultIndex[i] = i + j" where i, j are loop induction variables require the
arithmetics on indices as well as the possibility to operate on tensors
thereof. Allow arithmetic and comparison operations to apply to index types by
declaring them integer-like. Allow tensors whose element type is index for
indirection purposes.
The absence of vectors with "index" element type is explicitly tested, but the
only justification for this restriction in the CL introducing the test is
"because we don't need them". Do NOT enable vectors of index types, although
it makes vector and tensor types inconsistent with respect to allowed element
types.
PiperOrigin-RevId: 220614055
2018-11-08 20:04:32 +08:00
|
|
|
**Rationale:** integers of platform-specific bit widths are practical to express
|
|
|
|
sizes, dimensionalities and subscripts.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
#### Integer Type
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-01-08 01:59:55 +08:00
|
|
|
// Sized integers like i1, i4, i8, i16, i32.
|
2020-01-11 03:48:24 +08:00
|
|
|
signed-integer-type ::= `si` [1-9][0-9]*
|
|
|
|
unsigned-integer-type ::= `ui` [1-9][0-9]*
|
|
|
|
signless-integer-type ::= `i` [1-9][0-9]*
|
|
|
|
integer-type ::= signed-integer-type |
|
|
|
|
unsigned-integer-type |
|
|
|
|
signless-integer-type
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2020-01-11 03:48:24 +08:00
|
|
|
MLIR supports arbitrary precision integer types. Integer types have a designated
|
|
|
|
width and may have signedness semantics.
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-01-08 01:59:55 +08:00
|
|
|
**Rationale:** low precision integers (like `i2`, `i4` etc) are useful for
|
|
|
|
low-precision inference chips, and arbitrary precision integers are useful for
|
|
|
|
hardware synthesis (where a 13 bit multiplier is a lot cheaper/smaller than a 16
|
|
|
|
bit one).
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-01-08 01:59:55 +08:00
|
|
|
TODO: Need to decide on a representation for quantized integers
|
2020-04-19 12:42:08 +08:00
|
|
|
([initial thoughts](Rationale/Rationale.md#quantized-integer-operations)).
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
#### Memref Type
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-12-06 05:12:50 +08:00
|
|
|
memref-type ::= ranked-memref-type | unranked-memref-type
|
|
|
|
|
2021-01-12 06:57:05 +08:00
|
|
|
ranked-memref-type ::= `memref` `<` dimension-list-ranked type
|
2020-09-24 01:57:09 +08:00
|
|
|
(`,` layout-specification)? (`,` memory-space)? `>`
|
2019-12-06 05:12:50 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2021-01-12 06:57:05 +08:00
|
|
|
unranked-memref-type ::= `memref` `<*x` type (`,` memory-space)? `>`
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-10-04 03:33:47 +08:00
|
|
|
stride-list ::= `[` (dimension (`,` dimension)*)? `]`
|
|
|
|
strided-layout ::= `offset:` dimension `,` `strides: ` stride-list
|
2021-01-12 06:57:05 +08:00
|
|
|
semi-affine-map-composition ::= (semi-affine-map `,` )* semi-affine-map
|
|
|
|
layout-specification ::= semi-affine-map-composition | strided-layout
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
memory-space ::= integer-literal /* | TODO: address-space-id */
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A `memref` type is a reference to a region of memory (similar to a buffer
|
|
|
|
pointer, but more powerful). The buffer pointed to by a memref can be allocated,
|
|
|
|
aliased and deallocated. A memref can be used to read and write data from/to the
|
|
|
|
memory region which it references. Memref types use the same shape specifier as
|
2019-12-06 05:12:50 +08:00
|
|
|
tensor types. Note that `memref<f32>`, `memref<0 x f32>`, `memref<1 x 0 x f32>`,
|
|
|
|
and `memref<0 x 1 x f32>` are all different types.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A `memref` is allowed to have an unknown rank (e.g. `memref<*xf32>`). The
|
|
|
|
purpose of unranked memrefs is to allow external library functions to receive
|
|
|
|
memref arguments of any rank without versioning the functions based on the rank.
|
|
|
|
Other uses of this type are disallowed or will have undefined behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
##### Codegen of Unranked Memref
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using unranked memref in codegen besides the case mentioned above is highly
|
|
|
|
discouraged. Codegen is concerned with generating loop nests and specialized
|
|
|
|
instructions for high-performance, unranked memref is concerned with hiding the
|
|
|
|
rank and thus, the number of enclosing loops required to iterate over the data.
|
|
|
|
However, if there is a need to code-gen unranked memref, one possible path is to
|
|
|
|
cast into a static ranked type based on the dynamic rank. Another possible path
|
|
|
|
is to emit a single while loop conditioned on a linear index and perform
|
|
|
|
delinearization of the linear index to a dynamic array containing the (unranked)
|
|
|
|
indices. While this is possible, it is expected to not be a good idea to perform
|
|
|
|
this during codegen as the cost of the translations is expected to be
|
|
|
|
prohibitive and optimizations at this level are not expected to be worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
If expressiveness is the main concern, irrespective of performance, passing
|
|
|
|
unranked memrefs to an external C++ library and implementing rank-agnostic logic
|
|
|
|
there is expected to be significantly simpler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unranked memrefs may provide expressiveness gains in the future and help bridge
|
|
|
|
the gap with unranked tensors. Unranked memrefs will not be expected to be
|
|
|
|
exposed to codegen but one may query the rank of an unranked memref (a special
|
|
|
|
op will be needed for this purpose) and perform a switch and cast to a ranked
|
|
|
|
memref as a prerequisite to codegen.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-19 00:58:37 +08:00
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```mlir
|
|
|
|
// With static ranks, we need a function for each possible argument type
|
2020-07-24 13:06:01 +08:00
|
|
|
%A = alloc() : memref<16x32xf32>
|
|
|
|
%B = alloc() : memref<16x32x64xf32>
|
|
|
|
call @helper_2D(%A) : (memref<16x32xf32>)->()
|
|
|
|
call @helper_3D(%B) : (memref<16x32x64xf32>)->()
|
2019-12-07 08:03:16 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-19 00:58:37 +08:00
|
|
|
// With unknown rank, the functions can be unified under one unranked type
|
2019-12-07 08:03:16 +08:00
|
|
|
%A = alloc() : memref<16x32xf32>
|
|
|
|
%B = alloc() : memref<16x32x64xf32>
|
|
|
|
// Remove rank info
|
|
|
|
%A_u = memref_cast %A : memref<16x32xf32> -> memref<*xf32>
|
|
|
|
%B_u = memref_cast %B : memref<16x32x64xf32> -> memref<*xf32>
|
2019-12-19 00:58:37 +08:00
|
|
|
// call same function with dynamic ranks
|
2019-12-07 08:03:16 +08:00
|
|
|
call @helper(%A_u) : (memref<*xf32>)->()
|
2019-12-19 00:58:37 +08:00
|
|
|
call @helper(%B_u) : (memref<*xf32>)->()
|
2019-12-07 08:03:16 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-10-04 03:33:47 +08:00
|
|
|
The core syntax and representation of a layout specification is a
|
|
|
|
[semi-affine map](Dialects/Affine.md#semi-affine-maps). Additionally, syntactic
|
|
|
|
sugar is supported to make certain layout specifications more intuitive to read.
|
|
|
|
For the moment, a `memref` supports parsing a strided form which is converted to
|
|
|
|
a semi-affine map automatically.
|
|
|
|
|
2021-02-05 21:53:00 +08:00
|
|
|
The memory space of a memref is specified by a target-specific attribute.
|
|
|
|
It might be an integer value, string, dictionary or custom dialect attribute.
|
|
|
|
The empty memory space (attribute is None) is target specific.
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The notionally dynamic value of a memref value includes the address of the
|
|
|
|
buffer allocated, as well as the symbols referred to by the shape, layout map,
|
|
|
|
and index maps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Examples of memref static type
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
// Identity index/layout map
|
2020-01-14 05:12:37 +08:00
|
|
|
#identity = affine_map<(d0, d1) -> (d0, d1)>
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Column major layout.
|
2020-01-14 05:12:37 +08:00
|
|
|
#col_major = affine_map<(d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1, d0)>
|
2019-09-23 01:14:11 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// A 2-d tiled layout with tiles of size 128 x 256.
|
2020-01-14 05:12:37 +08:00
|
|
|
#tiled_2d_128x256 = affine_map<(d0, d1) -> (d0 div 128, d1 div 256, d0 mod 128, d1 mod 256)>
|
2019-09-23 01:14:11 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// A tiled data layout with non-constant tile sizes.
|
2020-01-14 05:12:37 +08:00
|
|
|
#tiled_dynamic = affine_map<(d0, d1)[s0, s1] -> (d0 floordiv s0, d1 floordiv s1,
|
|
|
|
d0 mod s0, d1 mod s1)>
|
2019-09-23 01:14:11 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// A layout that yields a padding on two at either end of the minor dimension.
|
2020-01-14 05:12:37 +08:00
|
|
|
#padded = affine_map<(d0, d1) -> (d0, (d1 + 2) floordiv 2, (d1 + 2) mod 2)>
|
2019-09-23 01:14:11 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// The dimension list "16x32" defines the following 2D index space:
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// { (i, j) : 0 <= i < 16, 0 <= j < 32 }
|
|
|
|
//
|
2020-09-24 01:57:09 +08:00
|
|
|
memref<16x32xf32, #identity>
|
2019-09-23 01:14:11 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
// The dimension list "16x4x?" defines the following 3D index space:
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// { (i, j, k) : 0 <= i < 16, 0 <= j < 4, 0 <= k < N }
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// where N is a symbol which represents the runtime value of the size of
|
|
|
|
// the third dimension.
|
2019-09-23 01:14:11 +08:00
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// %N here binds to the size of the third dimension.
|
2020-09-24 01:57:09 +08:00
|
|
|
%A = alloc(%N) : memref<16x4x?xf32, #col_major>
|
2019-09-23 01:14:11 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// A 2-d dynamic shaped memref that also has a dynamically sized tiled layout.
|
|
|
|
// The memref index space is of size %M x %N, while %B1 and %B2 bind to the
|
|
|
|
// symbols s0, s1 respectively of the layout map #tiled_dynamic. Data tiles of
|
|
|
|
// size %B1 x %B2 in the logical space will be stored contiguously in memory.
|
2019-10-09 01:21:26 +08:00
|
|
|
// The allocation size will be (%M ceildiv %B1) * %B1 * (%N ceildiv %B2) * %B2
|
2019-09-23 01:14:11 +08:00
|
|
|
// f32 elements.
|
|
|
|
%T = alloc(%M, %N) [%B1, %B2] : memref<?x?xf32, #tiled_dynamic>
|
|
|
|
|
2019-09-26 02:57:13 +08:00
|
|
|
// A memref that has a two-element padding at either end. The allocation size
|
[mlir] NFC: Fix trivial typos in documents
Fix trivial typos
Reviewers: mravishankar, antiagainst, ftynse
Reviewed By: ftynse
Subscribers: ftynse, mehdi_amini, rriddle, jpienaar, burmako, shauheen, antiagainst, nicolasvasilache, arpith-jacob, mgester, lucyrfox, aartbik, liufengdb, Joonsoo, bader, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76347
2020-03-18 17:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
// will fit 16 * 64 float elements of data.
|
2019-09-23 01:14:11 +08:00
|
|
|
%P = alloc() : memref<16x64xf32, #padded>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Affine map with symbol 's0' used as offset for the first dimension.
|
2020-01-14 05:12:37 +08:00
|
|
|
#imapS = affine_map<(d0, d1) [s0] -> (d0 + s0, d1)>
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
// Allocate memref and bind the following symbols:
|
|
|
|
// '%n' is bound to the dynamic second dimension of the memref type.
|
|
|
|
// '%o' is bound to the symbol 's0' in the affine map of the memref type.
|
|
|
|
%n = ...
|
|
|
|
%o = ...
|
2019-09-23 01:14:11 +08:00
|
|
|
%A = alloc (%n)[%o] : <16x?xf32, #imapS>
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
##### Index Space
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A memref dimension list defines an index space within which the memref can be
|
|
|
|
indexed to access data.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
##### Index
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Data is accessed through a memref type using a multidimensional index into the
|
|
|
|
multidimensional index space defined by the memref's dimension list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Examples
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
// Allocates a memref with 2D index space:
|
|
|
|
// { (i, j) : 0 <= i < 16, 0 <= j < 32 }
|
2020-09-24 01:57:09 +08:00
|
|
|
%A = alloc() : memref<16x32xf32, #imapA>
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Loads data from memref '%A' using a 2D index: (%i, %j)
|
2020-09-24 01:57:09 +08:00
|
|
|
%v = load %A[%i, %j] : memref<16x32xf32, #imapA>
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
##### Index Map
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
An index map is a one-to-one
|
|
|
|
[semi-affine map](Dialects/Affine.md#semi-affine-maps) that transforms a
|
|
|
|
multidimensional index from one index space to another. For example, the
|
|
|
|
following figure shows an index map which maps a 2-dimensional index from a 2x2
|
|
|
|
index space to a 3x3 index space, using symbols `S0` and `S1` as offsets.
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2020-03-23 04:13:17 +08:00
|
|
|
![Index Map Example](/includes/img/index-map.svg)
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The number of domain dimensions and range dimensions of an index map can be
|
|
|
|
different, but must match the number of dimensions of the input and output index
|
|
|
|
spaces on which the map operates. The index space is always non-negative and
|
|
|
|
integral. In addition, an index map must specify the size of each of its range
|
|
|
|
dimensions onto which it maps. Index map symbols must be listed in order with
|
|
|
|
symbols for dynamic dimension sizes first, followed by other required symbols.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
##### Layout Map
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
A layout map is a [semi-affine map](Dialects/Affine.md#semi-affine-maps) which
|
|
|
|
encodes logical to physical index space mapping, by mapping input dimensions to
|
|
|
|
their ordering from most-major (slowest varying) to most-minor (fastest
|
|
|
|
varying). Therefore, an identity layout map corresponds to a row-major layout.
|
2019-11-16 02:19:26 +08:00
|
|
|
Identity layout maps do not contribute to the MemRef type identification and are
|
|
|
|
discarded on construction. That is, a type with an explicit identity map is
|
|
|
|
`memref<?x?xf32, (i,j)->(i,j)>` is strictly the same as the one without layout
|
|
|
|
maps, `memref<?x?xf32>`.
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Layout map examples:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
// MxN matrix stored in row major layout in memory:
|
2019-09-23 01:14:11 +08:00
|
|
|
#layout_map_row_major = (i, j) -> (i, j)
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// MxN matrix stored in column major layout in memory:
|
2019-09-23 01:14:11 +08:00
|
|
|
#layout_map_col_major = (i, j) -> (j, i)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// MxN matrix stored in a 2-d blocked/tiled layout with 64x64 tiles.
|
|
|
|
#layout_tiled = (i, j) -> (i floordiv 64, j floordiv 64, i mod 64, j mod 64)
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
##### Affine Map Composition
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A memref specifies a semi-affine map composition as part of its type. A
|
|
|
|
semi-affine map composition is a composition of semi-affine maps beginning with
|
|
|
|
zero or more index maps, and ending with a layout map. The composition must be
|
|
|
|
conformant: the number of dimensions of the range of one map, must match the
|
|
|
|
number of dimensions of the domain of the next map in the composition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The semi-affine map composition specified in the memref type, maps from accesses
|
2019-03-30 04:15:06 +08:00
|
|
|
used to index the memref in load/store operations to other index spaces (i.e.
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
logical to physical index mapping). Each of the
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
[semi-affine maps](Dialects/Affine.md) and thus its composition is required to
|
|
|
|
be one-to-one.
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The semi-affine map composition can be used in dependence analysis, memory
|
|
|
|
access pattern analysis, and for performance optimizations like vectorization,
|
|
|
|
copy elision and in-place updates. If an affine map composition is not specified
|
|
|
|
for the memref, the identity affine map is assumed.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-10-04 03:33:47 +08:00
|
|
|
##### Strided MemRef
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A memref may specify strides as part of its type. A stride specification is a
|
|
|
|
list of integer values that are either static or `?` (dynamic case). Strides
|
|
|
|
encode the distance, in number of elements, in (linear) memory between
|
|
|
|
successive entries along a particular dimension. A stride specification is
|
|
|
|
syntactic sugar for an equivalent strided memref representation using
|
2020-10-15 08:07:58 +08:00
|
|
|
semi-affine maps. For example, `memref<42x16xf32, offset: 33, strides: [1, 64]>`
|
2019-10-04 03:33:47 +08:00
|
|
|
specifies a non-contiguous memory region of `42` by `16` `f32` elements such
|
|
|
|
that:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. the minimal size of the enclosing memory region must be `33 + 42 * 1 + 16 *
|
|
|
|
64 = 1066` elements;
|
|
|
|
2. the address calculation for accessing element `(i, j)` computes `33 + i +
|
|
|
|
64 * j`
|
2021-02-08 19:22:01 +08:00
|
|
|
3. the distance between two consecutive elements along the inner dimension is
|
2019-10-04 03:33:47 +08:00
|
|
|
`1` element and the distance between two consecutive elements along the
|
|
|
|
outer dimension is `64` elements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This corresponds to a column major view of the memory region and is internally
|
|
|
|
represented as the type `memref<42x16xf32, (i, j) -> (33 + i + 64 * j)>`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The specification of strides must not alias: given an n-D strided memref,
|
|
|
|
indices `(i1, ..., in)` and `(j1, ..., jn)` may not refer to the same memory
|
|
|
|
address unless `i1 == j1, ..., in == jn`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strided memrefs represent a view abstraction over preallocated data. They are
|
|
|
|
constructed with special ops, yet to be introduced. Strided memrefs are a
|
|
|
|
special subclass of memrefs with generic semi-affine map and correspond to a
|
|
|
|
normalized memref descriptor when lowering to LLVM.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
#### None Type
|
2019-03-30 13:23:34 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
none-type ::= `none`
|
2019-03-30 13:23:34 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
The `none` type is a unit type, i.e. a type with exactly one possible value,
|
|
|
|
where its value does not have a defined dynamic representation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Tensor Type
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2021-01-12 06:57:05 +08:00
|
|
|
tensor-type ::= `tensor` `<` dimension-list type `>`
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dimension-list ::= dimension-list-ranked | (`*` `x`)
|
|
|
|
dimension-list-ranked ::= (dimension `x`)*
|
|
|
|
dimension ::= `?` | decimal-literal
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
Values with tensor type represents aggregate N-dimensional data values, and
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
have a known element type. It may have an unknown rank (indicated by `*`) or may
|
|
|
|
have a fixed rank with a list of dimensions. Each dimension may be a static
|
|
|
|
non-negative decimal constant or be dynamically determined (indicated by `?`).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The runtime representation of the MLIR tensor type is intentionally abstracted -
|
|
|
|
you cannot control layout or get a pointer to the data. For low level buffer
|
|
|
|
access, MLIR has a [`memref` type](#memref-type). This abstracted runtime
|
|
|
|
representation holds both the tensor data values as well as information about
|
|
|
|
the (potentially dynamic) shape of the tensor. The
|
|
|
|
[`dim` operation](Dialects/Standard.md#dim-operation) returns the size of a
|
|
|
|
dimension from a value of tensor type.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: hexadecimal integer literals are not allowed in tensor type declarations
|
|
|
|
to avoid confusion between `0xf32` and `0 x f32`. Zero sizes are allowed in
|
|
|
|
tensors and treated as other sizes, e.g., `tensor<0 x 1 x i32>` and `tensor<1 x
|
|
|
|
0 x i32>` are different types. Since zero sizes are not allowed in some other
|
|
|
|
types, such tensors should be optimized away before lowering tensors to vectors.
|
2019-03-30 13:23:34 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Examples:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
// Tensor with unknown rank.
|
|
|
|
tensor<* x f32>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Known rank but unknown dimensions.
|
|
|
|
tensor<? x ? x ? x ? x f32>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Partially known dimensions.
|
|
|
|
tensor<? x ? x 13 x ? x f32>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Full static shape.
|
|
|
|
tensor<17 x 4 x 13 x 4 x f32>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Tensor with rank zero. Represents a scalar.
|
|
|
|
tensor<f32>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Zero-element dimensions are allowed.
|
|
|
|
tensor<0 x 42 x f32>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Zero-element tensor of f32 type (hexadecimal literals not allowed here).
|
|
|
|
tensor<0xf32>
|
2019-03-30 13:23:34 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
#### Tuple Type
|
2019-03-20 01:59:02 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-03-20 01:59:02 +08:00
|
|
|
tuple-type ::= `tuple` `<` (type ( `,` type)*)? `>`
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The value of `tuple` type represents a fixed-size collection of elements, where
|
|
|
|
each element may be of a different type.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Rationale:** Though this type is first class in the type system, MLIR provides
|
|
|
|
no standard operations for operating on `tuple` types
|
2020-04-19 12:42:08 +08:00
|
|
|
([rationale](Rationale/Rationale.md#tuple-types)).
|
2019-03-20 01:59:02 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Examples:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2019-03-20 01:59:02 +08:00
|
|
|
// Empty tuple.
|
|
|
|
tuple<>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Single element
|
|
|
|
tuple<f32>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Many elements.
|
|
|
|
tuple<i32, f32, tensor<i1>, i5>
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
#### Vector Type
|
2019-04-28 09:35:04 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
vector-type ::= `vector` `<` static-dimension-list vector-element-type `>`
|
|
|
|
vector-element-type ::= float-type | integer-type
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static-dimension-list ::= (decimal-literal `x`)+
|
2019-04-28 09:35:04 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-23 07:43:06 +08:00
|
|
|
The vector type represents a SIMD style vector, used by target-specific
|
|
|
|
operation sets like AVX. While the most common use is for 1D vectors (e.g.
|
|
|
|
vector<16 x f32>) we also support multidimensional registers on targets that
|
|
|
|
support them (like TPUs).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vector shapes must be positive decimal integers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: hexadecimal integer literals are not allowed in vector type declarations,
|
|
|
|
`vector<0x42xi32>` is invalid because it is interpreted as a 2D vector with
|
|
|
|
shape `(0, 42)` and zero shapes are not allowed.
|
2019-04-28 09:35:04 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
## Attributes
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2021-02-05 08:17:45 +08:00
|
|
|
attribute-entry ::= (bare-id | string-literal) `=` attribute-value
|
|
|
|
attribute-value ::= attribute-alias | dialect-attribute | builtin-attribute
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
Attributes are the mechanism for specifying constant data on operations in
|
2021-02-05 05:27:25 +08:00
|
|
|
places where a variable is never allowed - e.g. the comparison predicate of a
|
2021-02-05 08:17:45 +08:00
|
|
|
[`cmpi` operation](Dialects/Standard.md#stdcmpi-cmpiop). Each operation has an
|
|
|
|
attribute dictionary, which associates a set of attribute names to attribute
|
|
|
|
values. MLIR's builtin dialect provides a rich set of
|
|
|
|
[builtin attribute values](#builtin-attribute-values) out of the box (such as
|
|
|
|
arrays, dictionaries, strings, etc.). Additionally, dialects can define their
|
|
|
|
own [dialect attribute values](#dialect-attribute-values).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The top-level attribute dictionary attached to an operation has special
|
|
|
|
semantics. The attribute entries are considered to be of two different kinds
|
|
|
|
based on whether their dictionary key has a dialect prefix:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- *inherent attributes* are inherent to the definition of an operation's
|
|
|
|
semantics. The operation itself is expected to verify the consistency of these
|
|
|
|
attributes. An example is the `predicate` attribute of the `std.cmpi` op.
|
|
|
|
These attributes must have names that do not start with a dialect prefix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- *discardable attributes* have semantics defined externally to the operation
|
|
|
|
itself, but must be compatible with the operations's semantics. These
|
|
|
|
attributes must have names that start with a dialect prefix. The dialect
|
|
|
|
indicated by the dialect prefix is expected to verify these attributes. An
|
|
|
|
example is the `gpu.container_module` attribute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that attribute values are allowed to themselves be dictionary attributes,
|
|
|
|
but only the top-level dictionary attribute attached to the operation is subject
|
|
|
|
to the classification above.
|
2019-03-03 14:34:18 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
### Attribute Value Aliases
|
2019-03-03 14:34:18 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2021-02-05 05:27:25 +08:00
|
|
|
attribute-alias-def ::= '#' alias-name '=' attribute-value
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
attribute-alias ::= '#' alias-name
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MLIR supports defining named aliases for attribute values. An attribute alias is
|
|
|
|
an identifier that can be used in the place of the attribute that it defines.
|
|
|
|
These aliases *must* be defined before their uses. Alias names may not contain a
|
|
|
|
'.', since those names are reserved for
|
|
|
|
[dialect attributes](#dialect-attribute-values).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2020-01-14 05:12:37 +08:00
|
|
|
#map = affine_map<(d0) -> (d0 + 10)>
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Using the original attribute.
|
2020-01-14 05:12:37 +08:00
|
|
|
%b = affine.apply affine_map<(d0) -> (d0 + 10)> (%a)
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Using the attribute alias.
|
|
|
|
%b = affine.apply #map(%a)
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Dialect Attribute Values
|
|
|
|
|
2019-11-26 09:53:20 +08:00
|
|
|
Similarly to operations, dialects may define custom attribute values. The
|
|
|
|
syntactic structure of these values is identical to custom dialect type values,
|
2020-12-03 04:42:01 +08:00
|
|
|
except that dialect attribute values are distinguished with a leading '#', while
|
|
|
|
dialect types are distinguished with a leading '!'.
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2020-12-03 04:42:01 +08:00
|
|
|
dialect-attribute-value ::= '#' opaque-dialect-item
|
|
|
|
dialect-attribute-value ::= '#' pretty-dialect-item
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2020-12-03 04:42:01 +08:00
|
|
|
Dialect attribute values can be specified in a verbose form, e.g. like this:
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2020-12-03 04:42:01 +08:00
|
|
|
// Complex attribute value.
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
#foo<"something<abcd>">
|
|
|
|
|
2020-12-03 04:42:01 +08:00
|
|
|
// Even more complex attribute value.
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
#foo<"something<a%%123^^^>>>">
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2020-12-03 04:42:01 +08:00
|
|
|
Dialect attribute values that are simple enough can use the pretty format, which
|
|
|
|
is a lighter weight syntax that is equivalent to the above forms:
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
// Complex attribute
|
|
|
|
#foo.something<abcd>
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2020-12-03 04:42:01 +08:00
|
|
|
Sufficiently complex dialect attribute values are required to use the verbose
|
|
|
|
form for generality. For example, the more complex type shown above would not be
|
|
|
|
valid in the lighter syntax: `#foo.something<a%%123^^^>>>` because it contains
|
|
|
|
characters that are not allowed in the lighter syntax, as well as unbalanced
|
|
|
|
`<>` characters.
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2020-12-03 04:42:01 +08:00
|
|
|
See [here](Tutorials/DefiningAttributesAndTypes.md) on how to define dialect
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
attribute values.
|
|
|
|
|
2020-12-04 09:22:57 +08:00
|
|
|
### Builtin Attribute Values
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2020-12-04 09:22:57 +08:00
|
|
|
Builtin attributes are a core set of
|
2021-02-05 08:17:45 +08:00
|
|
|
[dialect attribute values](#dialect-attribute-values) that are defined in a
|
|
|
|
builtin dialect and thus available to all users of MLIR.
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2020-12-04 09:22:57 +08:00
|
|
|
builtin-attribute ::= affine-map-attribute
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
| array-attribute
|
|
|
|
| bool-attribute
|
|
|
|
| dictionary-attribute
|
|
|
|
| elements-attribute
|
|
|
|
| float-attribute
|
|
|
|
| integer-attribute
|
|
|
|
| integer-set-attribute
|
|
|
|
| string-attribute
|
|
|
|
| symbol-ref-attribute
|
|
|
|
| type-attribute
|
|
|
|
| unit-attribute
|
2018-10-25 00:47:36 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
#### AffineMap Attribute
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2020-01-14 05:12:37 +08:00
|
|
|
affine-map-attribute ::= `affine_map` `<` affine-map `>`
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-05 10:30:01 +08:00
|
|
|
An affine-map attribute is an attribute that represents an affine-map object.
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
#### Array Attribute
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
array-attribute ::= `[` (attribute-value (`,` attribute-value)*)? `]`
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An array attribute is an attribute that represents a collection of attribute
|
|
|
|
values.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
#### Boolean Attribute
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
bool-attribute ::= bool-literal
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A boolean attribute is a literal attribute that represents a one-bit boolean
|
|
|
|
value, true or false.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-06-01 00:24:48 +08:00
|
|
|
#### Dictionary Attribute
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-06-01 00:24:48 +08:00
|
|
|
dictionary-attribute ::= `{` (attribute-entry (`,` attribute-entry)*)? `}`
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A dictionary attribute is an attribute that represents a sorted collection of
|
|
|
|
named attribute values. The elements are sorted by name, and each name must be
|
|
|
|
unique within the collection.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
#### Elements Attributes
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
elements-attribute ::= dense-elements-attribute
|
|
|
|
| opaque-elements-attribute
|
|
|
|
| sparse-elements-attribute
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An elements attribute is a literal attribute that represents a constant
|
|
|
|
[vector](#vector-type) or [tensor](#tensor-type) value.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
##### Dense Elements Attribute
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-06-26 07:06:13 +08:00
|
|
|
dense-elements-attribute ::= `dense` `<` attribute-value `>` `:`
|
|
|
|
( tensor-type | vector-type )
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A dense elements attribute is an elements attribute where the storage for the
|
2020-05-02 07:26:45 +08:00
|
|
|
constant vector or tensor value has been densely packed. The attribute supports
|
|
|
|
storing integer or floating point elements, with integer/index/floating element
|
|
|
|
types. It also support storing string elements with a custom dialect string
|
|
|
|
element type.
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
##### Opaque Elements Attribute
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
opaque-elements-attribute ::= `opaque` `<` dialect-namespace `,`
|
2019-06-26 07:06:13 +08:00
|
|
|
hex-string-literal `>` `:`
|
|
|
|
( tensor-type | vector-type )
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An opaque elements attribute is an elements attribute where the content of the
|
|
|
|
value is opaque. The representation of the constant stored by this elements
|
|
|
|
attribute is only understood, and thus decodable, by the dialect that created
|
|
|
|
it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: The parsed string literal must be in hexadecimal form.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
##### Sparse Elements Attribute
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-06-26 07:06:13 +08:00
|
|
|
sparse-elements-attribute ::= `sparse` `<` attribute-value `,` attribute-value
|
|
|
|
`>` `:` ( tensor-type | vector-type )
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A sparse elements attribute is an elements attribute that represents a sparse
|
|
|
|
vector or tensor object. This is where very few of the elements are non-zero.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The attribute uses COO (coordinate list) encoding to represent the sparse
|
|
|
|
elements of the elements attribute. The indices are stored via a 2-D tensor of
|
|
|
|
64-bit integer elements with shape [N, ndims], which specifies the indices of
|
|
|
|
the elements in the sparse tensor that contains non-zero values. The element
|
|
|
|
values are stored via a 1-D tensor with shape [N], that supplies the
|
|
|
|
corresponding values for the indices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2019-08-17 02:00:31 +08:00
|
|
|
sparse<[[0, 0], [1, 2]], [1, 5]> : tensor<3x4xi32>
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// This represents the following tensor:
|
|
|
|
/// [[1, 0, 0, 0],
|
|
|
|
/// [0, 0, 5, 0],
|
|
|
|
/// [0, 0, 0, 0]]
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
#### Float Attribute
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-08-17 02:00:31 +08:00
|
|
|
float-attribute ::= (float-literal (`:` float-type)?)
|
|
|
|
| (hexadecimal-literal `:` float-type)
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A float attribute is a literal attribute that represents a floating point value
|
2019-07-31 05:05:49 +08:00
|
|
|
of the specified [float type](#floating-point-types). It can be represented in
|
|
|
|
the hexadecimal form where the hexadecimal value is interpreted as bits of the
|
|
|
|
underlying binary representation. This form is useful for representing infinity
|
|
|
|
and NaN floating point values. To avoid confusion with integer attributes,
|
|
|
|
hexadecimal literals _must_ be followed by a float type to define a float
|
|
|
|
attribute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Examples:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-07-31 05:05:49 +08:00
|
|
|
42.0 // float attribute defaults to f64 type
|
|
|
|
42.0 : f32 // float attribute of f32 type
|
|
|
|
0x7C00 : f16 // positive infinity
|
|
|
|
0x7CFF : f16 // NaN (one of possible values)
|
|
|
|
42 : f32 // Error: expected integer type
|
|
|
|
```
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
#### Integer Attribute
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
integer-attribute ::= integer-literal ( `:` (index-type | integer-type) )?
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An integer attribute is a literal attribute that represents an integral value of
|
|
|
|
the specified integer or index type. The default type for this attribute, if one
|
|
|
|
is not specified, is a 64-bit integer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
##### Integer Set Attribute
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2020-01-14 05:12:37 +08:00
|
|
|
integer-set-attribute ::= `affine_set` `<` integer-set `>`
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-09-26 02:57:13 +08:00
|
|
|
An integer-set attribute is an attribute that represents an integer-set object.
|
2019-08-23 08:51:06 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-07-12 02:41:04 +08:00
|
|
|
#### String Attribute
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-07-12 02:41:04 +08:00
|
|
|
string-attribute ::= string-literal (`:` type)?
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-07-12 02:41:04 +08:00
|
|
|
A string attribute is an attribute that represents a string literal value.
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-07-12 02:41:04 +08:00
|
|
|
#### Symbol Reference Attribute
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-11-12 10:18:02 +08:00
|
|
|
symbol-ref-attribute ::= symbol-ref-id (`::` symbol-ref-id)*
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-07-12 02:41:04 +08:00
|
|
|
A symbol reference attribute is a literal attribute that represents a named
|
2019-10-09 01:21:26 +08:00
|
|
|
reference to an operation that is nested within an operation with the
|
|
|
|
`OpTrait::SymbolTable` trait. As such, this reference is given meaning by the
|
2019-11-12 10:18:02 +08:00
|
|
|
nearest parent operation containing the `OpTrait::SymbolTable` trait. It may
|
|
|
|
optionally contain a set of nested references that further resolve to a symbol
|
|
|
|
nested within a different symbol table.
|
2019-10-09 01:21:26 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This attribute can only be held internally by
|
|
|
|
[array attributes](#array-attribute) and
|
|
|
|
[dictionary attributes](#dictionary-attribute)(including the top-level operation
|
|
|
|
attribute dictionary), i.e. no other attribute kinds such as Locations or
|
2020-02-09 02:40:00 +08:00
|
|
|
extended attribute kinds.
|
2019-10-09 01:21:26 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 07:27:36 +08:00
|
|
|
**Rationale:** Identifying accesses to global data is critical to
|
[MLIR] Add RegionKindInterface
Some dialects have semantics which is not well represented by common
SSA structures with dominance constraints. This patch allows
operations to declare the 'kind' of their contained regions.
Currently, two kinds are allowed: "SSACFG" and "Graph". The only
difference between them at the moment is that SSACFG regions are
required to have dominance, while Graph regions are not required to
have dominance. The intention is that this Interface would be
generated by ODS for existing operations, although this has not yet
been implemented. Presumably, if someone were interested in code
generation, we might also have a "CFG" dialect, which defines control
flow, but does not require SSA.
The new behavior is mostly identical to the previous behavior, since
registered operations without a RegionKindInterface are assumed to
contain SSACFG regions. However, the behavior has changed for
unregistered operations. Previously, these were checked for
dominance, however the new behavior allows dominance violations, in
order to allow the processing of unregistered dialects with Graph
regions. One implication of this is that regions in unregistered
operations with more than one op are no longer CSE'd (since it
requires dominance info).
I've also reorganized the LangRef documentation to remove assertions
about "sequential execution", "SSA Values", and "Dominance". Instead,
the core IR is simply "ordered" (i.e. totally ordered) and consists of
"Values". I've also clarified some things about how control flow
passes between blocks in an SSACFG region. Control Flow must enter a
region at the entry block and follow terminator operation successors
or be returned to the containing op. Graph regions do not define a
notion of control flow.
see discussion here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-allowing-dialects-to-relax-the-ssa-dominance-condition/833/53
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80358
2020-05-16 01:33:13 +08:00
|
|
|
enabling efficient multi-threaded compilation. Restricting global
|
2020-04-30 07:27:36 +08:00
|
|
|
data access to occur through symbols and limiting the places that can
|
|
|
|
legally hold a symbol reference simplifies reasoning about these data
|
|
|
|
accesses.
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2020-02-09 02:40:00 +08:00
|
|
|
See [`Symbols And SymbolTables`](SymbolsAndSymbolTables.md) for more
|
|
|
|
information.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-05 23:19:42 +08:00
|
|
|
#### Type Attribute
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syntax:
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-02-13 04:55:40 +08:00
|
|
|
type-attribute ::= type
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A type attribute is an attribute that represents a [type object](#type-system).
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-26 00:56:09 +08:00
|
|
|
#### Unit Attribute
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|
2019-04-26 00:56:09 +08:00
|
|
|
unit-attribute ::= `unit`
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A unit attribute is an attribute that represents a value of `unit` type. The
|
|
|
|
`unit` type allows only one value forming a singleton set. This attribute value
|
|
|
|
is used to represent attributes that only have meaning from their existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One example of such an attribute could be the `swift.self` attribute. This
|
|
|
|
attribute indicates that a function parameter is the self/context parameter. It
|
|
|
|
could be represented as a [boolean attribute](#boolean-attribute)(true or
|
|
|
|
false), but a value of false doesn't really bring any value. The parameter
|
|
|
|
either is the self/context or it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-10 19:00:29 +08:00
|
|
|
```mlir
|
2019-04-26 00:56:09 +08:00
|
|
|
// A unit attribute defined with the `unit` value specifier.
|
2019-11-19 14:49:49 +08:00
|
|
|
func @verbose_form(i1) attributes {dialectName.unitAttr = unit}
|
2019-04-26 00:56:09 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// A unit attribute can also be defined without the value specifier.
|
2019-11-19 14:49:49 +08:00
|
|
|
func @simple_form(i1) attributes {dialectName.unitAttr}
|
2019-04-26 00:56:09 +08:00
|
|
|
```
|