This document attempts to describe a few developer policies used in MLIR (such as coding standards used) as well as development approach (such as, testing methods).
Style guide ¶
MLIR follows the LLVM style guide. We also adhere to the following (which deviate from or are not specified in the LLVM style guide):
- Adopts camelBack;
- Uses Doxygen-style (
///) comments for top-level and class member definitions, regardless of them being visible as public APIs.
- Except for IR units (Region, Block, and Operation), non-nullable output arguments are passed by non-const reference in general.
- IR constructs are not designed for const correctness.
- Do not use recursive algorithms if the recursion can’t be bounded
statically: that is avoid recursion if there is a possible IR input that can
trigger a stack overflow (for example traversing use-def chains in a
recursive way). At the moment, we tolerate it for the two following cases:
- The nesting of the IR: we use recursion when traversing nested regions.
- Type nesting: recursion may be used for the nesting of composite types.
- Follows git conventions for commit messages.
Please run clang-format on the files you modified with the
configuration file available in the root directory. Check the clang-format
documentation for more details
on integrating it with your development environment. In particular, if clang is
installed system-wide, running
git clang-format origin/main will update the
files in the working directory with the relevant formatting changes; don’t
forget to include those to the commit.
IR should be valid before and after each pass ¶
Passes should assume that their input IR passes the verifier. Passes should not check invariants that are guaranteed by the verifier. If many passes are checking the same invariant consider adding that invariant to the verifier or factoring the IR design / dialects to better model the invariant at each phase of compilation.
Similarly, the IR after a pass runs should be verifier-valid. If a pass produces IR that fails the verifier then the pass has a bug.
It is somewhat common for invalid IR to exist transiently while a pass is executing. This is moderately discouraged but often practically necessary.
Assertions and crashes in passes ¶
It should not be possible to trigger a crash or assertion by running an MLIR pass on verifier-valid IR. If it is possible, then the pass has a bug.
If a pass requires additional invariants not guaranteed by the verifier, then it should check them itself and if those invariants are not present, either safely perform no transformation (for pure optimization passes) or emit a diagnostic explaining why a transformation cannot be performed (for lowering passes where the transformation is needed for correctness).
Pass name and other command line options ¶
To avoid collision between options provided by different dialects, the naming
convention is to prepend the dialect name to every dialect-specific passes and
options in general. Options that are specific to a pass should also be prefixed
with the pass name. For example, the affine dialect provides a loop tiling pass
that is registered on the command line as
-affine-tile, and with a tile size
option that can be set with
We also avoid
cl::opt to provide pass options in favor of the
mechanism. This allows for these options to be serialized in a pass pipeline
description, as well as passing different options to multiple instances of a
pass in the same pipeline.
IR Verifier ¶
TLDR: only verify local aspects of an operation, in particular don’t follow def-use chains (don’t look at the producer of any operand or the user of any results).
MLIR encourages to enforce invariants around operations in verifiers. It is
common for operations defined in
to define constraint on the type of operands they accept, or the relationship
between operands and results. For example the operations in the
dialect are defined with the
SameOperandsAndResultType trait, which enforces
a self-describing invariant.
When an invariant fails, we consider the IR to be “invalid” and we abort the compilation flow. By convention the contract of any pass in the compiler is to assume its input IR is valid and it must produce a valid output as well. The default setting for the pass manager is to enforce this between every single pass. Because the process is aborted when a verifier is failing, they must only fire on things that are definitive broken invariant, and not on “possibly invalid” cases.
While it is encouraged to verify as much invariants as possible in order to
catch bugs during development as soon as possible, there is some important
aspect to keep in mind. In particular a common point of confusion is about how
to handle “undefined behavior” cases. For example the
// Returns the dimension of %A indexed by %dim. %y = tensor.dim %A, %dim : memref<4x?xf32>
%dim indicates what dimension to return. If the dimension index is out
of bounds, the behavior is undefined. What about:
%ten = arith.constant 10 : index %y = tensor.dim %A, %ten : memref<4x?xf32>
We have unambiguously a violation of the spec here, and we can statically verify it. However this is not the kind of invariants to enforce in a verifier because it relies on non-local properties, which makes the design of the compiler much less flexible. For example:
%five = arith.constant 5 : index %ten = arith.addi %five, %five : index %y = tensor.dim %A, %ten : memref<4x?xf32> }
The IR would be valid, and going through constant folding for
would lead to the situation above, if we deemed this invalid IR that would
mean that the folder for
arith.addi has a bug: it is turning valid IR
into invalid IR. The same would apply to many other transformations
(inlining for example).
This is why the guidelines to write verifier is to stick to information local to an operation (think “what I see when I print this operation alone”). Looking through operands or results is extremely unusual and should be avoided.
Testing guidelines ¶
See here for the testing guide.
Guidelines on contributing a new dialect (or important components) ¶
To contribute a dialect (or a major component in MLIR), it is usual to write an overview “RFC” (it can be just a few informal paragraphs) and send it to the MLIR mailing-list. When accepting a new component to MLIR, the community is also accepting the burden of maintaining it. The following points should be considered when evaluating whether a dialect is a good fit for the core MLIR repository:
- What is the overall goal of the dialect? What is the first implementation milestone?
- How does it fit into the MLIR dialect ecosystem?
- Connection: how does it connect to the existing dialects in a compilation pipeline(s)?
- Consolidation: is there already a dialect with a similar goal or matching abstractions; if so, can it be improved instead of adding a new one?
- Reuse: how does it generalize to similar but slightly different use-cases?
- What is the community of users that it is serving?
- Who are the future contributors/maintainers beyond those who propose the dialect?
On a practical aspect, we will expect the code to follow the other sections of this document, with an emphasis on the documentation alongside the source code.
It is prefered to upstream your dialects/components in small incremental patches that can be individually reviewed. That is, after the initial RFC has been agreed on, we encourage dialects to be built progressively by faster iterations in-tree ; as long as it is clear they evolve towards their milestones and goals.
We have seen the following broad categories of dialects:
- Edge dialects that model a representation external to MLIR. Examples include LLVM, SPIR-V dialects, TensorFlow, XLA/HLO, … Such dialects may be a better fit for the project that contains the original representation instead of being added to the MLIR repository. In particular, because MLIR will not take an external dependency on another project.
- Structured Abstraction dialects that generalize common features of several other dialects or introduce a programming model. Generalization is sometimes demonstrated by having several dialects lower to or originate from a new dialect. While additional abstractions may be useful, they should be traded off against the additional complexity of the dialect ecosystem. Examples of abstraction dialects include the GPU and Loop dialects.
- Transformation dialects that serve as input/output for program transformations. These dialects are commonly introduced to materialize transformation pre- and post-conditions in the IR, while conditions can be obtained through analysis or through operation semantics. Examples include Affine, Linalg dialects.
While it can be useful to frame the goals of a proposal, this categorization is not exhaustive or absolute, and the community is open to discussing any new dialect beyond this taxonomy.
Breaking Changes ¶
MLIR (like LLVM) does not provide any C++ compatibility guarantee, and favor refactoring API liberally to enable upstream development. Downstream users are expected to manage API updates when they pull a new version of MLIR.
When performing breaking changes, we expect to proceed with the most convenient way for the change to be reviewed and implemented, while minimizing churn. It is frequent to break changes in multiple commits to ease the review process. A breaking can be implemented incrementally within these guidelines, but we don’t go out of our way only to accomodate downstream users. As such we don’t have predefined deprecation period for APIs. A good practice is to communicate on Discourse about the timeline and plan for conducting such changes.
See also the general LLVM guideline for any large change in general.