[Mlir-commits] [mlir] [mlir][tosa] Add pass to assign static input shape to TOSA functions (PR #171156)

[Luke Hutton]

================
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+// RUN: mlir-opt -split-input-file -verify-diagnostics -tosa-experimental-input-shape="args=arg0:2x16,arg2:64x9" %s | FileCheck %s
+
+// CHECK-LABEL: test_empty_func
+func.func @test_empty_func(
+        // CHECK: %arg0: tensor<2x16xi32>
+        %arg0: tensor<2x?xi32>,
+        // CHECK: %arg1: tensor<?x256xf32>
+        %arg1: tensor<?x256xf32>,
+        // CHECK: %arg2: tensor<64x9xf32>
+        %arg2: tensor<?x9xf32>) -> (tensor<2x?xi32>, tensor<?x256xf32>, tensor<?x9xf32>) {
+    // CHECK: %arg0, %arg1, %arg2 : tensor<2x16xi32>, tensor<?x256xf32>, tensor<64x9xf32>
+    return %arg0, %arg1, %arg2 : tensor<2x?xi32>, tensor<?x256xf32>, tensor<?x9xf32>
+}
+
+// -----
+
+// CHECK-LABEL: test_func_with_ops
+func.func @test_func_with_ops(
+        // CHECK: %arg0: tensor<2x16xi32>
+        %arg0: tensor<2x?xi32>,
+        // CHECK: %arg1: tensor<?x256xf32>
+        %arg1: tensor<?x256xf32>,
+        // CHECK: %arg2: tensor<64x9xf32>
+        %arg2: tensor<?x9xf32>) -> (tensor<2x?xi32>, tensor<?x256xf32>, tensor<?x9xf32>) {
+    // CHECK: %[[ADD:.*]] = tosa.add %arg0, %arg0 : (tensor<2x16xi32>, tensor<2x16xi32>)
+    %0 = tosa.add %arg0, %arg0 : (tensor<2x?xi32>, tensor<2x?xi32>) -> tensor<2x?xi32>
+    // CHECK: %[[RECIP:.*]] =  tosa.reciprocal %arg1 : (tensor<?x256xf32>)
+    %1 = tosa.reciprocal %arg1 : (tensor<?x256xf32>) -> tensor<?x256xf32>
+    // CHECK: %[[SUB:.*]] = tosa.sub %arg2, %arg2 : (tensor<64x9xf32>, tensor<64x9xf32>)
+    %2 = tosa.sub %arg2, %arg2 : (tensor<?x9xf32>, tensor<?x9xf32>) -> tensor<?x9xf32>
+    return %0, %1, %2 : tensor<2x?xi32>, tensor<?x256xf32>, tensor<?x9xf32>
+}
+
+// -----
+
+// CHECK-LABEL: test_controlflow
+func.func @test_controlflow(
+        // CHECK: %arg0: tensor<2x16xi32>
+        %arg0: tensor<2x?xi32>,
+        // CHECK: %arg1: tensor<?x256xf32>
+        %arg1: tensor<?x256xf32>,
+        // CHECK: %arg2: tensor<64x9xf32>
+        %arg2: tensor<?x9xf32>,
+        // CHECK: %arg3: tensor<i1>
+        %arg3: tensor<i1>) -> (tensor<2x?xi32>, tensor<?x256xf32>, tensor<?x9xf32>) {
+    // CHECK: %[[IF:.*]]:3 = tosa.cond_if %arg3 (%arg4 = %arg0, %arg5 = %arg1, %arg6 = %arg2) : tensor<i1> (tensor<2x16xi32>, tensor<?x256xf32>, tensor<64x9xf32>) -> (tensor<2x?xi32>, tensor<?x256xf32>, tensor<?x9xf32>) {
----------------
lhutton1 wrote:

Not quite, though I hadn't really considered this too deeply. The current result is:
```
func.func @test_controlflow(%arg0: tensor<2x16xi32>, %arg1: tensor<?x256xf32>, %arg2: tensor<64x9xf32>, %arg3: tensor<i1>) -> (tensor<2x?xi32>, tensor<?x256xf32>, tensor<?x9xf32>) {
    %0:3 = tosa.cond_if %arg3 (%arg4 = %arg0, %arg5 = %arg1, %arg6 = %arg2) : tensor<i1> (tensor<2x16xi32>, tensor<?x256xf32>, tensor<64x9xf32>) -> (tensor<2x?xi32>, tensor<?x256xf32>, tensor<?x9xf32>) {
    ^bb0(%arg4: tensor<2x?xi32>, %arg5: tensor<?x256xf32>, %arg6: tensor<?x9xf32>):
      tosa.yield %arg4, %arg5, %arg6 : tensor<2x?xi32>, tensor<?x256xf32>, tensor<?x9xf32>
    } else {
    ^bb0(%arg4: tensor<2x?xi32>, %arg5: tensor<?x256xf32>, %arg6: tensor<?x9xf32>):
      tosa.yield %arg4, %arg5, %arg6 : tensor<2x?xi32>, tensor<?x256xf32>, tensor<?x9xf32>
    }
    return %0#0, %0#1, %0#2 : tensor<2x?xi32>, tensor<?x256xf32>, tensor<?x9xf32>
  }
```
Here, block argument types remain dynamic but have a compatible shape with the cond_if input arguments. Infer shapes is able to clean this up when propagating shape information. This might seem a little odd, but I'd argue it's not much different from output shapes that are missing type information. WDYT? Either way, I'll make the LIT test a bit more verbose here, thanks!

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/171156