|
patterns (#163080)
This is a follow-up PR for #162699.
Currently, in the function where we define rewrite patterns, the `op` we
receive is of type `ir.Operation` rather than a specific `OpView` type
(such as `arith.AddIOp`). This means we can’t conveniently access
certain parts of the operation — for example, we need to use
`op.operands[0]` instead of `op.lhs`. The following example code
illustrates this situation.
```python
def to_muli(op, rewriter):
# op is typed ir.Operation instead of arith.AddIOp
pass
patterns.add(arith.AddIOp, to_muli)
```
In this PR, we convert the operation to its corresponding `OpView`
subclass before invoking the rewrite pattern callback, making it much
easier to write patterns.
---------
Co-authored-by: Maksim Levental <maksim.levental@gmail.com>
|
|
This PR adds support for defining custom **`RewritePattern`**
implementations directly in the Python bindings.
Previously, users could define similar patterns using the PDL dialect’s
bindings. However, for more complex patterns, this often required
writing multiple Python callbacks as PDL native constraints or rewrite
functions, which made the overall logic less intuitive—though it could
be more performant than a pure Python implementation (especially for
simple patterns).
With this change, we introduce an additional, straightforward way to
define patterns purely in Python, complementing the existing PDL-based
approach.
### Example
```python
def to_muli(op, rewriter):
with rewriter.ip:
new_op = arith.muli(op.operands[0], op.operands[1], loc=op.location)
rewriter.replace_op(op, new_op.owner)
with Context():
patterns = RewritePatternSet()
patterns.add(arith.AddIOp, to_muli) # a pattern that rewrites arith.addi to arith.muli
frozen = patterns.freeze()
module = ...
apply_patterns_and_fold_greedily(module, frozen)
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Maksim Levental <maksim.levental@gmail.com>
|
