Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add signedness semantics for integer types #201

Merged
merged 5 commits into from Oct 10, 2022
Merged

Conversation

math-fehr
Copy link
Collaborator

@math-fehr math-fehr commented Oct 10, 2022

This PR adds signedness semantics for integer types, as MLIR does.
This PR also fix one test that was failing, but not running on the CI since the MLIR tests are not ran on the CI.
(Note, I should fix in a following PR this, since most of the MLIR files do not need MLIR anymore).

Copy link
Collaborator

@webmiche webmiche left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, module some changes that feel unrelated to me. I generally feel these maybe should be their own PR, as it confused me a bit in this PR.

xdsl/parser.py Show resolved Hide resolved
}
}
func.func() ["sym_name" = "tuple_to_tuple", "value" = !fun<[!tuple<[!i32]>], [!tuple<[!i32]>]>, "function_type" = !fun<[], []>] {}
// CHECK: "value" = !fun<[!tuple<[!i32]>], [!tuple<[!i32]>]>
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't quite get this change. AFAIU, you are using a function operation here to show that !fun<[!tuple<[!i32]>], [!tuple<[!i32]>]> can be parsed/printed. Why use a function operation? Aren't there easier operations to do that with? You can give sym_name and value to any operation to keep the name of the test around as well, right?

I feel like I am confused by these tests each time I see them. Would it make sense to have an empty test.testing operation just to make these tests easier to understand?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I'll add a test.testing in a following PR, that should make things better!

@math-fehr math-fehr added the xdsl xdsl framework specific changes label Oct 10, 2022
@math-fehr math-fehr merged commit 76f43a3 into main Oct 10, 2022
@math-fehr math-fehr deleted the signed_integer_type branch October 10, 2022 12:46
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
xdsl xdsl framework specific changes
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants