[Mlir-commits] [mlir] Reimplementing target description concept using DLTI attribute (PR #92138)

[Mehdi Amini]

================
@@ -375,32 +457,34 @@ class TargetDataLayoutInterface : public DataLayoutDialectInterface {
 };
 } // namespace
 
-void DLTIDialect::initialize() {
-  addAttributes<DataLayoutEntryAttr, DataLayoutSpecAttr>();
-  addInterfaces<TargetDataLayoutInterface>();
-}
-
-Attribute DLTIDialect::parseAttribute(DialectAsmParser &parser,
-                                      Type type) const {
-  StringRef attrKind;
-  if (parser.parseKeyword(&attrKind))
-    return {};
+namespace {
+/// An interface to check entries of a target device spec.
+class SystemDescSpecInterface : public DataLayoutDialectInterface {
+public:
+  using DataLayoutDialectInterface::DataLayoutDialectInterface;
 
-  if (attrKind == DataLayoutEntryAttr::kAttrKeyword)
-    return DataLayoutEntryAttr::parse(parser);
-  if (attrKind == DataLayoutSpecAttr::kAttrKeyword)
-    return DataLayoutSpecAttr::parse(parser);
+  LogicalResult verifyEntry(TargetDeviceSpecInterface entry,
+                            Location loc) const final {
 
-  parser.emitError(parser.getNameLoc(), "unknown attrribute type: ")
-      << attrKind;
-  return {};
-}
+    for (DataLayoutEntryInterface dl_entry : entry.getEntries()) {
+      StringRef entryName = dl_entry.getKey().get<StringAttr>().strref();
+      // Check that the key name is known to us. Although, we may allow keys
+      // unknown to us.
----------------
joker-eph wrote:

What is the logic behind this verifier? The comment says "we may allow keys unknown to us", but we don't right now?

(also we should avoid string comparisons)

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92138