-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 180
[CIR] Add lowering of BlockAddressOp #1909
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Instead of
std::pair<llvm::StringRef, llvm::StringRef>, it might be more MLIR and clean to create an attribute that wraps these two, just like LLVM dialect does. Can you add the attribute? It's fine if you do that in a follow up PR though, just let me know.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’d prefer to handle this in a future PR. Also, what do you think about changing
LabelOpto always use this attribute? I think that would be better, because right now I’m looking atIndirectBrOpand with what we have now, I imagine it could look something like this:(This is just a rough idea for now.)
The problem is that each
blockaddressonly has a string, so we don’t actually know the block associated with the label. I think with an attribute we could link the label to the block—but I don’t fully understand how that would work yet.(@andykaylor, I’d appreciate your input on this as welll)
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.
Sure thing, once you introduce new attributes they should be used wherever it makes sense.
What's the C/C++ code that might lead to this? Note that in LLVM if you don't have the label hints it's undefined behavior (https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#indirectbr-instruction) so I wouldn't worry about imaginary use cases.
For the case where this isn't undefined behavior: the new attribute has to be within the same function and part of one of the cir.labels used. (a) you can walk the blocks and find out (the slow options) the cir.labels, or (b) you can book keep the blocks as you go about emitting the "cir.label" instructions. If it's expensive to find the all block sources, we could just use the superset of all the ones we've seen cir.labels in (but I'd like to see a C/C++ source exercising that)