-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.3k
[mlir][test] Add unittests for getInversePermutation
#116945
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[mlir][test] Add unittests for getInversePermutation
#116945
Conversation
The only way to test `getInversePermutation` is through unit tests. The concept of "inverse permutations" is tricky to document and these tests are a good source documentation of the expected/intended behavoiur. Hence these additional unit tests. This is a follon-on llvm#114775 for in which I added tests for `isProjectedPermutation`.
@llvm/pr-subscribers-mlir Author: Andrzej Warzyński (banach-space) ChangesThe only way to test This is a follon-on #114775 for in which I added tests for Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/116945.diff 1 Files Affected:
diff --git a/mlir/unittests/IR/AffineMapTest.cpp b/mlir/unittests/IR/AffineMapTest.cpp
index eaeb18d128ca5e..c5a949431ac0a9 100644
--- a/mlir/unittests/IR/AffineMapTest.cpp
+++ b/mlir/unittests/IR/AffineMapTest.cpp
@@ -76,3 +76,39 @@ TEST(AffineMapTest, isProjectedPermutation) {
AffineMap map10 = AffineMap::get(6, 0, {d5, d3, d2, d4}, &ctx);
EXPECT_TRUE(map10.isProjectedPermutation());
}
+
+TEST(AffineMapTest, getInversePermutation) {
+ MLIRContext ctx;
+ OpBuilder b(&ctx);
+
+ // 0. Empty map
+ AffineMap map0 = AffineMap::get(0, 0, {}, &ctx);
+ AffineMap inverseMap0 = inversePermutation(map0);
+ EXPECT_TRUE(inverseMap0.isEmpty());
+
+ auto d0 = b.getAffineDimExpr(0);
+ auto d1 = b.getAffineDimExpr(1);
+ auto d2 = b.getAffineDimExpr(2);
+
+ // 1. (d0, d1, d2) -> (d1, d1, d0, d2, d1, d2, d1, d0)
+ AffineMap map1 = AffineMap::get(3, 0, {d1, d1, d0, d2, d1, d2, d1, d0}, &ctx);
+ // (d0, d1, d2, d3, d4, d5, d6, d7) -> (d2, d0, d3)
+ AffineMap inverseMap1 = inversePermutation(map1);
+ auto resultsInv1 = inverseMap1.getResults();
+ EXPECT_EQ(resultsInv1.size(), 3UL);
+ EXPECT_TRUE(resultsInv1[0].isFunctionOfDim(2));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(resultsInv1[1].isFunctionOfDim(0));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(resultsInv1[2].isFunctionOfDim(3));
+
+ // 2. (d0, d1, d2) -> (d1, d0 + d1, d0, d2, d1, d2, d1, d0)
+ auto sum = d0 + d1;
+ AffineMap map2 =
+ AffineMap::get(3, 0, {d1, sum, d0, d2, d1, d2, d1, d0}, &ctx);
+ // (d0, d1, d2, d3, d4, d5, d6, d7) -> (d2, d0, d3)
+ AffineMap inverseMap2 = inversePermutation(map2);
+ auto resultsInv2 = inverseMap2.getResults();
+ EXPECT_EQ(resultsInv2.size(), 3UL);
+ EXPECT_TRUE(resultsInv1[0].isFunctionOfDim(2));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(resultsInv1[1].isFunctionOfDim(0));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(resultsInv1[2].isFunctionOfDim(3));
+}
|
mlir/unittests/IR/AffineMapTest.cpp
Outdated
AffineMap inverseMap1 = inversePermutation(map1); | ||
auto resultsInv1 = inverseMap1.getResults(); | ||
EXPECT_EQ(resultsInv1.size(), 3UL); | ||
EXPECT_TRUE(resultsInv1[0].isFunctionOfDim(2)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please double check this instead of fully trusting me. But I think in case of isFunctionOfDim
, d2
has to appear somewhere in the expression e.g. d2+d1
would work, and so is a less restrictive ask then if we are really check d2
and only `d2.
auto expr = llvm::dyn_cast<AffineDimExpr>(resultsInv1[0]);
if (!expr) EXPECT_EQ(0,1);
EXPECT_EQ(expr.getPosition(), 2)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's a great point and I really appreciate the suggestion. In fact, I wasn't sure how to do it :) That's now been incorporated.
Make the checks more restrictive
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM. Thanks for adding these tests. H
The only way to test
getInversePermutation
is through unit tests. Theconcept of "inverse permutations" is tricky to document and these tests
are a good source documentation of the expected/intended behavoiur.
Hence these additional unit tests.
This is a follow-on of #114775 in which I added tests for
isProjectedPermutation
.