[Mlir-commits] [mlir] [MLIR][Linalg] Introduce SpecializeOp (PR #70326)

[lorenzo chelini]

================
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+//===- Specialize.cpp - linalg generic ops to named ops  ------------------===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
+//
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+//
+// This file implements a method to specialize generic operations to named
+// operations. Conceptually it is the opposite of generalize.cpp.
+//
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+#include "mlir/Dialect/Linalg/IR/Linalg.h"
+#include "mlir/Dialect/Linalg/Transforms/Transforms.h"
+#include "llvm/Support/Debug.h"
+
+#define DEBUG_TYPE "linalg-specialization"
+
+using namespace mlir;
+using namespace mlir::linalg;
+
+static bool isaCopyOp(GenericOp genericOp) {
+  // Structural.
+  if (genericOp.getNumParallelLoops() != genericOp.getNumLoops())
+    return false;
+
+  // Operands and maps.
+  if (genericOp.getNumDpsInputs() != 1 || genericOp.getNumDpsInits() != 1)
+    return false;
+  auto mapRange = genericOp.getIndexingMapsArray();
+  if (mapRange.size() != 2 || !mapRange.front().isIdentity() ||
----------------
chelini wrote:

Thanks for the comment. We could add `isCanonicalizedIdentityMap`, but linalg.copy does not support broadcast. What use cases do you have in mind? Should we start a small working group around this topic? Linalg specialization (aka linalg.generic -> linalg.named ops) has been discussed multiple times, but no concrete steps have been taken in this direction. What do you think?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70326