[mlir][tosa] handle unranked tensors in tosa::table::verify

[mariocamillo-IMG]

Seen when running TOSA PRO-INT conformance tests in our SUT. This leads to verify being called with unranked tensors causing exception/error when trying to call getShape on them.
Made some variables const for consistency with other verify functions in same file.

[github-actions]

Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project!

This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be notified.

If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this page.

If this is not working for you, it is probably because you do not have write permissions for the repository. In which case you can instead tag reviewers by name in a comment by using @ followed by their GitHub username.

If you have received no comments on your PR for a week, you can request a review by "ping"ing the PR by adding a comment “Ping”. The common courtesy "ping" rate is once a week. Please remember that you are asking for valuable time from other developers.

If you have further questions, they may be answered by the LLVM GitHub User Guide.

You can also ask questions in a comment on this PR, on the LLVM Discord or on the forums.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-mlir-tosa

Author: Mario Camillo (mariocamillo-IMG)

Changes

Seen when running TOSA PRO-INT conformance tests in our SUT. This leads to verify being called with unranked tensors causing exception/error when trying to call getShape on them.
Made some variables const for consistency with other verify functions in same file.

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/156321.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) mlir/lib/Dialect/Tosa/IR/TosaOps.cpp (+6-4)

diff --git a/mlir/lib/Dialect/Tosa/IR/TosaOps.cpp b/mlir/lib/Dialect/Tosa/IR/TosaOps.cpp
index 3cafb199d2db3..63e99814bf17b 100644
--- a/mlir/lib/Dialect/Tosa/IR/TosaOps.cpp
+++ b/mlir/lib/Dialect/Tosa/IR/TosaOps.cpp
@@ -1951,11 +1951,13 @@ LogicalResult tosa::TableOp::inferReturnTypeComponents(
 }
 
 LogicalResult tosa::TableOp::verify() {
-  TensorType inputType = getInput1().getType();
-  TensorType outputType = getOutput().getType();
+  const TensorType inputType = getInput1().getType();
+  const TensorType outputType = getOutput().getType();
+
+  if (!inputType.hasRank() || !outputType.hasRank())
+    return success();
 
-  if (inputType.hasRank() && outputType.hasRank() &&
-      inputType.getRank() != outputType.getRank())
+  if (inputType.getRank() != outputType.getRank())
     return emitOpError()
            << "expected input tensor rank to equal result tensor rank";
 

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-mlir

Author: Mario Camillo (mariocamillo-IMG)

Changes

Seen when running TOSA PRO-INT conformance tests in our SUT. This leads to verify being called with unranked tensors causing exception/error when trying to call getShape on them.
Made some variables const for consistency with other verify functions in same file.

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/156321.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) mlir/lib/Dialect/Tosa/IR/TosaOps.cpp (+6-4)

diff --git a/mlir/lib/Dialect/Tosa/IR/TosaOps.cpp b/mlir/lib/Dialect/Tosa/IR/TosaOps.cpp
index 3cafb199d2db3..63e99814bf17b 100644
--- a/mlir/lib/Dialect/Tosa/IR/TosaOps.cpp
+++ b/mlir/lib/Dialect/Tosa/IR/TosaOps.cpp
@@ -1951,11 +1951,13 @@ LogicalResult tosa::TableOp::inferReturnTypeComponents(
 }
 
 LogicalResult tosa::TableOp::verify() {
-  TensorType inputType = getInput1().getType();
-  TensorType outputType = getOutput().getType();
+  const TensorType inputType = getInput1().getType();
+  const TensorType outputType = getOutput().getType();
+
+  if (!inputType.hasRank() || !outputType.hasRank())
+    return success();
 
-  if (inputType.hasRank() && outputType.hasRank() &&
-      inputType.getRank() != outputType.getRank())
+  if (inputType.getRank() != outputType.getRank())
     return emitOpError()
            << "expected input tensor rank to equal result tensor rank";
 

[lhutton1]

Thanks for the patch @mariocamillo-IMG, would it be possible to add a test?

[mariocamillo-IMG]

@lhutton1 I added a test as requested. It fails with an assertion without the patch but throws the correct error with it

[lhutton1]

LGTM, thanks!

[github-actions]

@mariocamillo-IMG Congratulations on having your first Pull Request (PR) merged into the LLVM Project!

Your changes will be combined with recent changes from other authors, then tested by our build bots. If there is a problem with a build, you may receive a report in an email or a comment on this PR.

Please check whether problems have been caused by your change specifically, as the builds can include changes from many authors. It is not uncommon for your change to be included in a build that fails due to someone else's changes, or infrastructure issues.

How to do this, and the rest of the post-merge process, is covered in detail here.

If your change does cause a problem, it may be reverted, or you can revert it yourself. This is a normal part of LLVM development. You can fix your changes and open a new PR to merge them again.

If you don't get any reports, no action is required from you. Your changes are working as expected, well done!