[PATCH] D48651: [RFC] Pattern matching on schedule trees.

[lorenzo chelini via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

chelini added inline comments.


================
Comment at: include/polly/ScheduleOptimizer.h:50
+
+Suggestions on how to do that? 
+
----------------
ftynse wrote:
> It depends on what you need exactly.  Just one node without specifying a type?  Does that mean that the node _does_ exist or _may_ exist?   Do you want to skip over multiple levels of the tree?  Do you want to skip over multiple siblings?  One can go shell-like wildcard way with `?` and `*`.  Or some flavor of regular expressions, but this quickly goes out of hand.  I'd like to see examples of what needs to be expressed before taking a decision.  My feeling after using different flavors of schedule trees is that you probably need some traversal matchers like `hasSibling` or `hasDescendant`
Hi, Indeed `hasSibling` or `hasDescendant` would be really useful. In the case of matrix-multiplication suggested by Michael you may, for example, have two different schedule trees:

-Domain 
--Band {/*mat mul op */}
---Leaf

For the simple case without initialization or

-Domain
--Sequence
---Filter
----Band
-----Leaf
---Filter
----Band
-----Leaf
---Filter
----Band {/*mat mul op */}
-----Leaf

For the case with initialization.  A possible matchers would look like as Domain(hasDescendant(Band())). Of course, band should have specific properties related to the matmul operation. Do you already have in mind a possible implementation for these traversal matchers?


https://reviews.llvm.org/D48651