This CL argues that the builder API for AffineExpr should be used
with a lightweight wrapper that supports operators chaining.
This CL takes the ill-named AffineExprWrap and proposes a simple
set of operators with builtin constant simplifications.
This allows:
1. removing the getAddMulPureAffineExpr function;
2. avoiding concerns about constant vs non-constant simplifications
at **every call site**;
3. writing the mathematical expressions we want to write without unnecessary
obfuscations.
The points above represent pure technical debt that we don't want to carry on.
It is important to realize that this is not a mere convenience or "just sugar"
but reduction in cognitive overhead.
This thinking can be pushed significantly further, I have added some comments
with some basic ideas but we could make AffineMap, AffineApply and other
objects that use map applications more functional and value-based.
I am putting this out to get a first batch of reviews and see what people
think.
I think in my preferred design I would have the Builder directly return such
AffineExprPtr objects by value everywhere and avoid the boilerplate explicit
creations that I am doing by hand at this point.
Yes this AffineExprPtr would implicitly convert to AffineExpr* because that is
what it is.
PiperOrigin-RevId: 215641317
Use these methods to simplify existing code. Rename getConstantMap
getConstantAffineMap. Move declarations to group similar ones together.
PiperOrigin-RevId: 212814829
unroll/unroll-and-jam more powerful; add additional affine expr builder methods
- use previously added analysis/simplification to infer multiple of unroll
factor trip counts, making loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more general.
- for loop unroll, support bounds that are single result affine map's with the
same set of operands. For unknown loop bounds, loop unroll will now work as
long as trip count can be determined to be a multiple of unroll factor.
- extend getConstantTripCount to deal with single result affine map's with the
same operands. move it to mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp
- add additional builder utility methods for affine expr arithmetic
(difference, mod/floordiv/ceildiv w.r.t postitive constant). simplify code to
use the utility methods.
- move affine analysis routines to AffineAnalysis.cpp/.h from
AffineStructures.cpp/.h.
- Rename LoopUnrollJam to LoopUnrollAndJam to match class name.
- add an additional simplification for simplifyFloorDiv, simplifyCeilDiv
- Rename AffineMap::getNumOperands() getNumInputs: an affine map by itself does
not have operands. Operands are passed to it through affine_apply, from loop
bounds/if condition's, etc., operands are stored in the latter.
This should be sufficiently powerful for now as far as unroll/unroll-and-jam go for TPU
code generation, and can move to other analyses/transformations.
Loop nests like these are now unrolled without any cleanup loop being generated.
for %i = 1 to 100 {
// unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated.
for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (5*d0 + 3) (%i) {
%x = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32
}
}
for %i = 1 to 100 {
// unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated.
for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 - d mod 4 - 1) (%i) {
%y = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32
}
}
for %i = 1 to 100 {
for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 + 128) (%i) {
%x = "foo"() : () -> i32
}
}
TODO(bondhugula): extend this to LoopUnrollAndJam as well in the next CL (with minor
changes).
PiperOrigin-RevId: 212661212
Outside of IR/
- simplify a MutableAffineMap by flattening the affine expressions
- add a simplify affine expression pass that uses this analysis
- update the FlatAffineConstraints API (to be used in the next CL)
In IR:
- add isMultipleOf and getKnownGCD for AffineExpr, and make the in-IR
simplication of simplifyMod simpler and more powerful.
- rename the AffineExpr visitor methods to distinguish b/w visiting and
walking, and to simplify API names based on context.
The next CL will use some of these for the loop unrolling/unroll-jam to make
the detection for the need of cleanup loop powerful/non-trivial.
A future CL will finally move this simplification to FlatAffineConstraints to
make it more powerful. For eg., currently, even if a mod expr appearing in a
part of the expression tree can't be simplified, the whole thing won't be
simplified.
PiperOrigin-RevId: 211012256
- Drop sub-classing of affine binary op expressions.
- Drop affine expr op kind sub. Represent it as multiply by -1 and add. This
will also be in line with the math form when we'll need to represent a system of
linear equalities/inequalities: the negative number goes into the coefficient
of an affine form. (For eg. x_1 + (-1)*x_2 + 3*x_3 + (-2) >= 0). The folding
simplification will transparently deal with multiplying the -1 with any other
constants. This also means we won't need to simplify a multiply expression
like in x_1 + (-2)*x_2 to a subtract expression (x_1 - 2*x_2) for
canonicalization/uniquing.
- When we print the IR, we will still pretty print to a subtract when possible.
PiperOrigin-RevId: 205298958
- fold constants when possible.
- for a mul expression, canonicalize to always keep the LHS as the
constant/symbolic term, and similarly, the RHS for an add expression to keep
it closer to the mathematical form. (Eg: f(x) = 3*x + 5)); other similar simplifications;
- verify binary op expressions at creation time.
TODO: we can completely drop AffineSubExpr, and instead use add and mul by -1.
This way something like x - 4 and -4 + x get canonicalized to x + -1 * 4
instead of being x - 4 and x + -4. (The other alternative if wanted to retain
AffineSubExpr would be to simplify x + -1*y to x - y and x + <neg number> to x
- <pos number>).
PiperOrigin-RevId: 204240258
use it.
This also removes "operand" from the affine expr classes: it is unnecessary
verbosity and "operand" will mean something very specific for SSA stuff (we
will have an Operand type).
PiperOrigin-RevId: 203976504
- check for non-affine expressions
- handle negative numbers and negation of id's, expressions
- functions to check if a map is pure affine or semi-affine
- simplify/clean up affine map parsing code
- report more errors messages, more accurate error messages
PiperOrigin-RevId: 203773633
Run test case:
$ mlir-opt test/IR/parser-affine-map.mlir
test/IR/parser-affine-map.mlir:3:30: error: expect '(' at start of map range
#hello_world2 (i, j) [s0] -> i+s0, j)
^
PiperOrigin-RevId: 202736856
- parsing affine map identifiers
- place-holder classes for AffineMap
- module contains a list of affine maps (defined at the top level).
PiperOrigin-RevId: 202336919
