-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.2k
[mlir][affine] fix the issue of celidiv mul ceildiv expression not satisfying commutative #109382
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
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why not just use AffineExpr::walk? It'll do a post-order traversal, so you could just have a stack of partial results. Unless I'm still missing something :-).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This requires pre order traversal. Perhaps we can refactor Affine Visitor to support pre order traversal.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you give me a small example/explanation where pre-order traversal is needed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry,I didn't express clearly. The implementation of this
isDivisibleBySymbolrequires a pre-order traversal.eg:
base on the current expr type, using a control traversal approach, perhaps returning the interrupting and boolean types in the visitor can meet this requirement, but it also needs to be reimplemented.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In a post-order traversal with a stack for intermediates, you'd have the results for lhs and rhs on the top of the stack when you visit an add, right? Can you give me a more complete example where this doesn't work?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see no problem with using an explicit stack in addition to the implicit one in ::walk.
If you're concerned about stack overflows, the correct thing to do is to refactor ::walk to not be recursive, since that function is used in many places, so fixing this particular location isn't really sufficient if stack overflows are an issue with ::walk.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Refactoring MLIR
walk()to not be recursive is a long-lasting issue: patch welcome to fix this!There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok.I will switch to a ‘walk’ approach and then refactor AffineExprVisitor in another patch using a stack to avoid recursive calls.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why don't use
walk,This is walk implementation.At this point,
lhsandrhshave already been traversed.and I don't know where to do the push stack.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@joker-eph The
walkhere is the traversal method ofAffineExpr. When you mentionmlir:: walk, do you mean aboutmlir::Operation?