[Mlir-commits] [mlir] [MLIR][LLVM] Block address support (PR #134335)

[Tobias Gysi]

================
@@ -3815,6 +3840,55 @@ void InlineAsmOp::getEffects(
   }
 }
 
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+// BlockAddressOp
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+LogicalResult
+BlockAddressOp::verifySymbolUses(SymbolTableCollection &symbolTable) {
+  Operation *symbol = symbolTable.lookupSymbolIn(parentLLVMModule(*this),
+                                                 getBlockAddr().getFunction());
+  auto function = dyn_cast_or_null<LLVMFuncOp>(symbol);
+
+  if (!function)
+    return emitOpError("must reference a function defined by 'llvm.func'");
+
+  return success();
+}
+
+LLVMFuncOp BlockAddressOp::getFunction(SymbolTableCollection &symbolTable) {
+  return dyn_cast_or_null<LLVMFuncOp>(symbolTable.lookupSymbolIn(
+      parentLLVMModule(*this), getBlockAddr().getFunction()));
+}
+
+BlockTagOp BlockAddressOp::getBlockTagOp() {
+  auto m = (*this)->getParentOfType<ModuleOp>();
+  auto funcOp = cast<LLVMFuncOp>(mlir::SymbolTable::lookupNearestSymbolFrom(
+      m, getBlockAddr().getFunction()));
+
+  BlockTagOp blockTagOp = nullptr;
+  funcOp.walk([&](LLVM::BlockTagOp labelOp) {
+    if (labelOp.getTag() == getBlockAddr().getTag()) {
+      blockTagOp = labelOp;
+      return WalkResult::interrupt();
+    }
+    return WalkResult::advance();
+  });
+  return blockTagOp;
+}
+
+LogicalResult BlockAddressOp::verify() {
+  if (!getBlockTagOp())
----------------
gysit wrote:

That sounds definitely like we need to prevent inlining for any functions that contain a blockTagOp!

You should be able to add the op here:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/92923e517c2926eb94b7b6e403433ecf62953186/mlir/lib/Dialect/LLVMIR/Transforms/InlinerInterfaceImpl.cpp#L730

The verifier seems pretty expensive but since I do not expect the op to show up too often I expect this to be fine.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134335