[flang][Evaluate] Pattern matching framework for evaluate::Expr

[kparzysz]

Implement a framework to make it easier to detect if evaluate::Expr has certain structure.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-flang-semantics

Author: Krzysztof Parzyszek (kparzysz)

Changes

Implement a framework to make it easier to detect if evaluate::Expr<T> has certain structure.

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/153042.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (added) flang/include/flang/Evaluate/match.h (+211)

diff --git a/flang/include/flang/Evaluate/match.h b/flang/include/flang/Evaluate/match.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..79da40f7c1338
--- /dev/null
+++ b/flang/include/flang/Evaluate/match.h
@@ -0,0 +1,211 @@
+//===-- include/flang/Evaluate/match.h --------------------------*- C++ -*-===//
+//
+// 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
+//
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+#ifndef FORTRAN_EVALUATE_MATCH_H_
+#define FORTRAN_EVALUATE_MATCH_H_
+
+#include "flang/Common/visit.h"
+#include "flang/Evaluate/expression.h"
+#include "llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h"
+
+#include <tuple>
+#include <type_traits>
+#include <utility>
+#include <variant>
+
+namespace Fortran::evaluate {
+namespace match {
+namespace detail {
+template <typename, typename = void> //
+struct IsOperation {
+  static constexpr bool value{false};
+};
+
+template <typename T>
+struct IsOperation<T, std::void_t<decltype(T::operands)>> {
+  static constexpr bool value{true};
+};
+} // namespace detail
+
+template <typename T>
+constexpr bool is_operation_v{detail::IsOperation<T>::value};
+
+template <typename T>
+const evaluate::Expr<T> &deparen(const evaluate::Expr<T> &x) {
+  if (auto *parens{std::get_if<evaluate::Parentheses<T>>(&x.u)}) {
+    return deparen(parens->template operand<0>());
+  } else {
+    return x;
+  }
+}
+
+// Expr<T> matchers (patterns)
+//
+// Each pattern should implement
+//   bool match(const U &input) const
+// member function that returns `true` when the match was successful,
+// and `false` otherwise.
+//
+// Patterns are intended to be composable, i.e. a pattern can take operands
+// which themselves are patterns. This composition is expected to match if
+// the root pattern and all its operands match given input.
+
+/// Matches any input as long as it has the expected type `MatchType`.
+/// Additionally, it sets the member `ref` to the matched input.
+template <typename T> struct TypePattern {
+  using MatchType = llvm::remove_cvref_t<T>;
+
+  template <typename U> bool match(const U &input) const {
+    if constexpr (std::is_same_v<MatchType, U>) {
+      ref = &input;
+      return true;
+    } else {
+      return false;
+    }
+  }
+
+  mutable const MatchType *ref{nullptr};
+};
+
+/// Matches one of the patterns provided as template arguments. All of these
+/// patterns should have the same number of operands, i.e. they all should
+/// try to match input expression with the same number of children, i.e.
+/// AnyOfPattern<SomeBinaryOp, OtherBinaryOp> is ok, whereas
+/// AnyOfPattern<SomeBinaryOp, SomeTernaryOp> is not.
+template <typename... Patterns> struct AnyOfPattern {
+  static_assert(sizeof...(Patterns) != 0);
+
+private:
+  using PatternTuple = std::tuple<Patterns...>;
+
+  template <size_t I>
+  using Pattern = typename std::tuple_element<I, PatternTuple>::type;
+
+  template <size_t... Is, typename... Ops>
+  AnyOfPattern(std::index_sequence<Is...>, const Ops &...ops)
+      : patterns(std::make_tuple(Pattern<Is>(ops...)...)) {}
+
+  template <typename P, typename U>
+  bool matchOne(const P &pattern, const U &input) const {
+    if (pattern.match(input)) {
+      ref = &pattern;
+      return true;
+    }
+    return false;
+  }
+
+  template <typename U, size_t... Is>
+  bool matchImpl(const U &input, std::index_sequence<Is...>) const {
+    return (matchOne(std::get<Is>(patterns), input) || ...);
+  }
+
+  PatternTuple patterns;
+
+public:
+  using Indexes = std::index_sequence_for<Patterns...>;
+  using MatchTypes = std::tuple<typename Patterns::MatchType...>;
+
+  template <typename... Ops>
+  AnyOfPattern(const Ops &...ops) : AnyOfPattern(Indexes{}, ops...) {}
+
+  template <typename U> bool match(const U &input) const {
+    return matchImpl(input, Indexes{});
+  }
+
+  mutable std::variant<const Patterns *..., std::monostate> ref{
+      std::monostate{}};
+};
+
+/// Matches any input of type Expr<T>
+/// The indent if this pattern is to be a leaf in multi-operand patterns.
+template <typename T> //
+struct ExprPattern : public TypePattern<evaluate::Expr<T>> {};
+
+/// Matches evaluate::Expr<T> that contains evaluate::Opreration<OpType>.
+template <typename OpType, typename... Ops>
+struct OperationPattern : public TypePattern<OpType> {
+private:
+  using Indexes = std::index_sequence_for<Ops...>;
+
+  template <typename S, size_t... Is>
+  bool matchImpl(const S &op, std::index_sequence<Is...>) const {
+    using TypeS = llvm::remove_cvref_t<S>;
+    if constexpr (is_operation_v<TypeS>) {
+      if constexpr (TypeS::operands == Indexes::size()) {
+        return TypePattern<OpType>::match(op) &&
+            (std::get<Is>(operands).match(op.template operand<Is>()) && ...);
+      }
+    }
+    return false;
+  }
+
+  std::tuple<const Ops &...> operands;
+
+public:
+  using MatchType = OpType;
+
+  OperationPattern(const Ops &...ops, llvm::type_identity<OpType> = {})
+      : operands(ops...) {}
+
+  template <typename T> bool match(const evaluate::Expr<T> &input) const {
+    return common::visit(
+        [&](auto &&s) { return matchImpl(s, Indexes{}); }, deparen(input).u);
+  }
+
+  template <typename U> bool match(const U &input) const {
+    // Only match Expr<T>
+    return false;
+  }
+};
+
+template <typename OpType, typename... Ops>
+OperationPattern(const Ops &...ops, llvm::type_identity<OpType>)
+    -> OperationPattern<OpType, Ops...>;
+
+// Namespace-level definitions
+
+template <typename T> using Expr = ExprPattern<T>;
+
+template <typename OpType, typename... Ops>
+using Op = OperationPattern<OpType, Ops...>;
+
+template <typename Pattern, typename Input>
+bool match(const Pattern &pattern, const Input &input) {
+  return pattern.match(input);
+}
+
+// Specific operation patterns
+
+// -- Add
+template <typename Type, typename Op0, typename Op1>
+struct Add : public Op<evaluate::Add<Type>, Op0, Op1> {
+  using Base = Op<evaluate::Add<Type>, Op0, Op1>;
+
+  Add(const Op0 &op0, const Op1 &op1) : Base(op0, op1) {}
+};
+
+template <typename Type, typename Op0, typename Op1>
+Add<Type, Op0, Op1> add(const Op0 &op0, const Op1 &op1) {
+  return Add<Type, Op0, Op1>(op0, op1);
+}
+
+// -- Mul
+template <typename Type, typename Op0, typename Op1>
+struct Mul : public Op<evaluate::Multiply<Type>, Op0, Op1> {
+  using Base = Op<evaluate::Multiply<Type>, Op0, Op1>;
+
+  Mul(const Op0 &op0, const Op1 &op1) : Base(op0, op1) {}
+};
+
+template <typename Type, typename Op0, typename Op1>
+Mul<Type, Op0, Op1> mul(const Op0 &op0, const Op1 &op1) {
+  return Mul<Type, Op0, Op1>(op0, op1);
+}
+} // namespace match
+} // namespace Fortran::evaluate
+
+#endif // FORTRAN_EVALUATE_MATCH_H_

[kparzysz]

PR stack:

• [flang][OpenMP] Refactor creating atomic analysis, NFC #153036
• [flang][Evaluate] Implement rewriting framework for evaluate::Expr #153037
• [flang][OpenMP] Move rewriting of min/max from Lower to Semantics #153038
• [flang][Evaluate] Pattern matching framework for evaluate::Expr #153042 (this PR)
• [flang][OpenMP] Reassociate ATOMIC update expressions #153098

[tblah]

This looks good at a glance, but I think we do need some upstream use for this before merging. Or at least a way of testing it.

[kparzysz]

This looks good at a glance, but I think we do need some upstream use for this before merging. Or at least a way of testing it.

I'm working on a PR that will use it. It will reassociate (when allowed) atomic update expressions like x = x + a + b, which are technically illegal due to associativity, from x = (x + a) + b to x = x + (a + b). This has been requested by some of our users. I should have the PR ready later today (my time).

Edit: #153098

[tblah]

Clever stuff