[CIR][Lowering] Add scf.scope lowering to standard dialects #262
Conversation
|
|
||
| for (auto &block : scopeOp.getRegion()) { | ||
| rewriter.setInsertionPointToEnd(&block); | ||
| auto yield = cast<mlir::cir::YieldOp>(block.getTerminator()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does every block in the scope have a yield? I recall that some blocks can have a return op. @bcardosolopes can you please confirm?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, possible terminators are YieldOp, ReturnOp, ThrowOp
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Got it. The doc seems to be a little outdated.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Created #265 to track this.
Kuree
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Requesting changes based on @htyu comments.
I'm ok with this direction, but if you're willing to go an extra mile, the ProperWay™ to do this is to unwrap cir.scope as part of LoweringPrepare.cpp pass, in a CIR to CIR transformation. This way both LLVM and MLIR lowering can share the same scope unwrapping logic.
If the region only has one block: then it's a matter of moving the alloca's to the parent region entry block. If there's more than one block than you need to also tie cleanup blocks.
|
|
||
| for (auto &block : scopeOp.getRegion()) { | ||
| rewriter.setInsertionPointToEnd(&block); | ||
| auto yield = cast<mlir::cir::YieldOp>(block.getTerminator()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, possible terminators are YieldOp, ReturnOp, ThrowOp
Kuree
force-pushed
the
patch/scope-mlir
branch
from
4bf2084
to
2356c02
Compare
Are you referring to the cleanup/optimization steps before the CIR lowering? If I understand it correctly, don't you still need a lowering rewrite pattern for |
I just realized that scf.scope is higher level and will benefit from direct lowering, nevermind! |
This PR adds MLIR lowering of `cir.scope`. I also notice that the MLIR unit tests still uses old integer types. I will fix those in a separate PR.
This PR adds MLIR lowering of `cir.scope`. I also notice that the MLIR unit tests still uses old integer types. I will fix those in a separate PR.
This PR adds MLIR lowering of `cir.scope`. I also notice that the MLIR unit tests still uses old integer types. I will fix those in a separate PR.
This PR adds MLIR lowering of `cir.scope`. I also notice that the MLIR unit tests still uses old integer types. I will fix those in a separate PR.
This PR adds MLIR lowering of `cir.scope`. I also notice that the MLIR unit tests still uses old integer types. I will fix those in a separate PR.
This PR adds MLIR lowering of `cir.scope`. I also notice that the MLIR unit tests still uses old integer types. I will fix those in a separate PR.
This PR adds MLIR lowering of `cir.scope`. I also notice that the MLIR unit tests still uses old integer types. I will fix those in a separate PR.
This PR adds MLIR lowering of `cir.scope`. I also notice that the MLIR unit tests still uses old integer types. I will fix those in a separate PR.
This PR adds MLIR lowering of `cir.scope`. I also notice that the MLIR unit tests still uses old integer types. I will fix those in a separate PR.
This PR adds MLIR lowering of `cir.scope`. I also notice that the MLIR unit tests still uses old integer types. I will fix those in a separate PR.
This PR adds MLIR lowering of
cir.scope.I also notice that the MLIR unit tests still uses old integer types. I will fix those in a separate PR.