similar to: Google’s TensorFlow team would like to contribute MLIR to the LLVM Foundation

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 22:22, Chris Lattner <clattner at google.com> wrote: > Including a bunch of content, eg a full langref doc: > https://github.com/tensorflow/mlir/blob/master/g3doc/LangRef.md Thanks Chris, that looks awesome! This one could perhaps be improved with time: https://github.com/tensorflow/mlir/blob/master/g3doc/ConversionToLLVMDialect.md Which I think was Hal's

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 1:40 PM David Greene via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > > But perhaps more importantly, as Hal states clearly, is the need for > > an official specification, similar to the one for LLVM IR, as well as > > a formal document with the expected semantics into

Overall, I think it will be a good move. Maintenance wise, I'm expecting the existing community to move into LLVM (if not all in already), so I don't foresee any additional costs. Though, Hal's points are spot on... On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 18:47, Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > 3. As a specific example of the above, the current development

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 1:54 PM David Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: > Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> writes: > > > Of course by its nature, MLIR doesn't lend itself to concrete semantic > >> descriptions, though I would expect the affine dialect (and others) to > >> have documentation on par with the LLVM IR. > > > > >

Please find the reply inline below On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 12:59 AM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 10:42 AM Vinay Madhusudan via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Reply to Kiran Chandramohan: >> >> > You are welcome to participate, provide feedback and criticism to >> change the

Hi, I have few questions / concerns regarding the design of OpenMP dialect in MLIR that is currently being implemented, mainly for the f18 compiler. Below, I summarize the current state of various efforts in clang / f18 / MLIR / LLVM regarding this. Feel free to add to the list in case I have missed something. 1. [May 2019] An OpenMPIRBuilder in LLVM was proposed for flang and clang frontends.

Thanks for the reply! It sounds like LLVM IR is being considered for optimizations in OpenMP constructs. There seems to be plans regarding improvement of LLVM IR Framework for providing things required for OpenMP / flang(?) Are there any design considerations which contain pros and cons about using the MLIR vs LLVM IR for various OpenMP related optimizations/ transformations? The latest RFC [

On Jul 25, 2019, at 7:20 AM, Michael Kruse via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Am Mi., 24. Juli 2019 um 16:13 Uhr schrieb Tim Northover > <t.p.northover at gmail.com>: … Siddharth’s original RFC <https://github.com/bollu/llvm-multidim-array-indexing-proposal/blob/master/RFC.md> ... >> Apart from all that, I'm pretty disappointed to see this as an

Hi, (bcc: mlir at tensorflow.org FYI) I am following-up on the integration of MLIR in LLVM as a subproject (Re: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-October/135687.html ). We're aiming to integrate into the monorepo next month. Right now our intent is for MLIR to live in a top-level directory in parallel to clang, lldb, lld, etc. Our top option for the integration is to perform a

Reply to Kiran Chandramohan: > You are welcome to participate, provide feedback and criticism to change the design as well as to contribute to the implementation. Thank you Kiran. > But the latest is what is there in the RFC in discourse. I have used this as reference for the response. > We did a study of a few constructs and clauses which was shared as mails to flang-dev and the

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 8:54 AM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 5:03 AM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> (bcc: mlir at tensorflow.org FYI) >> >> I am following-up on the integration of MLIR in LLVM as a subproject (Re: >>

Please find the reply inline below: On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 8:02 AM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:29 AM Vinay Madhusudan <vinay at compilertree.com> > wrote: > >> Please find the reply inline below >> >> On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 12:59 AM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: >>

+ MLIR dev mailing list since that’s where the OrcJit I’m using is. Thanks for all the details, Lang! What you described is exactly what I’m looking for! Please, MLIR dev, let me know if this debug feature and the solution that Lang describes below is interesting for MLIR. I’ll dig more into the details then but it doesn’t seem too complicated. Thanks, Diego From: Lang Hames [mailto:lhames at

This thread is not active for a while, but I'm still interested in seeing a change. Reading through this thread, looks like we can agree that we want to change the local variable naming scheme so that they start with a lowercase letter. Besides that, there were discussions about lower_case, camelCase, m_ prefix, and each argument seems as convincing as others. I'm not sure what is the

Hi, I broke the MLIR build yesterday and the two Flang bots told me about it pretty much right away. Yay! That is how I always thought the setup should work (modulo that we all try not to break builds). Today I got emails from an MLIR bot and I was a bit confused. I looked at the configuration of the two MLIR bots and it seems they test commits one by one, with the backlog that you would

Hi- In August we made an announcement of "FC: A new fortran front end" [1]. At that time to get an end-to-end solution, we made FC to emit LLVM IR directly. At present, we have upgraded FC to emit MLIR. Currently the language supported is close to Fortran-95. Apart from 400+ unit test cases, out framework passes two SPEC-2017 benchmarks successfully. Currently we are cleaning up the

Starting from May-June, we at "Compiler Tree" would start porting clang compiler to use MLIR as middle end target. If someone has already started a similar effort we would love to collaborate with them. If someone would like to work with us, we are ready to form a group and collaborate. If there are sharing opportunities from Fortran side, we would like to consider the same. We are

+1 for batching. In practice it's probably more important that things get run for every MLIR checkin, and not necessarily for every LLVM checkin. Steve On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Indeed there is quite a backlog here right now: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/mlir-windows and here >

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 6:27 PM Michael Platings <Michael.Platings at arm.com> wrote: > Hi Rui, > > > > As per the provisional plan [1] we’re still at step 1: improving git > blame. The status of this is that there are some fairly mature patches in > the Git project’s queue [2], and I’m hopeful that it will be accepted in > something close to its current form. >

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 10:58 AM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote: > Since you are going to rewrite the mlir history anyway, you can > probably delete accidentally checked in large files if any. > Good point, I checked and this is the largest file in the history of the repo as far as I can tell: