[mlir] Fix bug that prevents application of PrintingFlags in Location

[jungmair]

The current implementation of LocationSnapshotPass takes an OpPrintingFlags argument and stores it as member, but does not use it for printing.
Small fix: use already stored flags for printing (as originally intended)

[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-core

Author: Michael Jungmair (jungmair)

Changes

The current implementation of LocationSnapshotPass takes an OpPrintingFlags argument and stores it as member, but does not use it for printing.
Small fix: use already stored flags for printing (as originally intended)

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/119373.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) mlir/lib/Transforms/LocationSnapshot.cpp (+1-1)

diff --git a/mlir/lib/Transforms/LocationSnapshot.cpp b/mlir/lib/Transforms/LocationSnapshot.cpp
index b85850acda91bd..b8f3817db9db6e 100644
--- a/mlir/lib/Transforms/LocationSnapshot.cpp
+++ b/mlir/lib/Transforms/LocationSnapshot.cpp
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ struct LocationSnapshotPass
 
   void runOnOperation() override {
     Operation *op = getOperation();
-    if (failed(generateLocationsFromIR(fileName, op, OpPrintingFlags(), tag)))
+    if (failed(generateLocationsFromIR(fileName, op, flags, tag)))
       return signalPassFailure();
   }
 

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-mlir

Author: Michael Jungmair (jungmair)

Changes

The current implementation of LocationSnapshotPass takes an OpPrintingFlags argument and stores it as member, but does not use it for printing.
Small fix: use already stored flags for printing (as originally intended)

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/119373.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) mlir/lib/Transforms/LocationSnapshot.cpp (+1-1)

diff --git a/mlir/lib/Transforms/LocationSnapshot.cpp b/mlir/lib/Transforms/LocationSnapshot.cpp
index b85850acda91bd..b8f3817db9db6e 100644
--- a/mlir/lib/Transforms/LocationSnapshot.cpp
+++ b/mlir/lib/Transforms/LocationSnapshot.cpp
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ struct LocationSnapshotPass
 
   void runOnOperation() override {
     Operation *op = getOperation();
-    if (failed(generateLocationsFromIR(fileName, op, OpPrintingFlags(), tag)))
+    if (failed(generateLocationsFromIR(fileName, op, flags, tag)))
       return signalPassFailure();
   }
 

[jungmair]

@River707 Maybe you could have a look on this?

[joker-eph]

Thanks for the fix!
Is this something that we can exercise with a test?

[jungmair]

Thanks for the fix! Is this something that we can exercise with a test?

In theory yes, but IMO it is 1) highly unlikely that there will be a regression 2) requires a bit more effort because the flags are not exposed with mlir-opt and thus would require writing a C++ application that uses it with flags.

[joker-eph]

OK that's a problem though: the flags should be made a proper pass option, can you moves these to the .td file?

[jungmair]

I just looked into it, but it is not that easy. As far as I see, there is no previous usage of OpPrintingFlags as pass option/no existing option parser. Also OpPrintingFlags has ~9 settings, so this is not really trivial. What do you propose?

[joker-eph]

It is a strong concern to me that pass-options must roundtrip.

It does not seem really difficult though, very mechanical, see: joker-eph@ceb4834

More importantly, most of these are irrelevant, so I believe we can prune this down to: joker-eph@94a5496

Does this achieve what you're after?

[jungmair]

Yes, thanks for your help on this.
I fixed a small typo/bug in your changes and added a test that verifies that the generated snapshot file fits the printing flags (i.e., is printed with debug info)

[joker-eph]

Just a nit, but better avoid $$ and split over multiple line: lit will treat it the same.

Suggested change

	// RUN: mlir-opt -allow-unregistered-dialect -snapshot-op-locations='filename=%/t print-debuginfo' -mlir-print-local-scope -mlir-print-debuginfo %s | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=DBG -DFILE=%/t && cat %/t | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=DBGFILE
	// RUN: mlir-opt -allow-unregistered-dialect -snapshot-op-locations='filename=%/t print-debuginfo' -mlir-print-local-scope -mlir-print-debuginfo %s | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=DBG -DFILE=%/t
	// RUN: cat %/t | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=DBGFILE

[jungmair]

Could you also merge it :)

[github-actions]

@jungmair 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!