[MLIR][Python] Add missing peel_front argument to LoopPeelOp's extension class

[rolfmorel]

While PR 74015 added support for peeling an iteration from the front of a loop, it did not update the (non-automatically generated) part of the Python interface that exposes the op.

[github-actions]

Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project!

This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be
notified.

If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this page.

If this is not working for you, it is probably because you do not have write
permissions for the repository. In which case you can instead tag reviewers by
name in a comment by using @ followed by their GitHub username.

If you have received no comments on your PR for a week, you can request a review
by "ping"ing the PR by adding a comment “Ping”. The common courtesy "ping" rate
is once a week. Please remember that you are asking for valuable time from other developers.

If you have further questions, they may be answered by the LLVM GitHub User Guide.

You can also ask questions in a comment on this PR, on the LLVM Discord or on the forums.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-mlir

Author: Rolf Morel (rolfmorel)

Changes

While PR 74015 added support for peeling an iteration from the front of a loop, it did not update the (non-automatically generated) part of the Python interface that exposes the op.

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81424.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) mlir/python/mlir/dialects/transform/loop.py (+6)

diff --git a/mlir/python/mlir/dialects/transform/loop.py b/mlir/python/mlir/dialects/transform/loop.py
index 3bdd9ca3b22f07..c4770b1c4067e4 100644
--- a/mlir/python/mlir/dialects/transform/loop.py
+++ b/mlir/python/mlir/dialects/transform/loop.py
@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ def __init__(
         remainder_loop_type: Type,
         target: Union[Operation, Value],
         *,
+        peel_front: Union[bool, BoolAttr] = False,
         fail_if_already_divisible: Union[bool, BoolAttr] = False,
         ip=None,
         loc=None,
@@ -63,6 +64,11 @@ def __init__(
             main_loop_type,
             remainder_loop_type,
             _get_op_result_or_value(target),
+            peel_front=(
+                peel_front
+                if isinstance(peel_front, BoolAttr)
+                else BoolAttr.get(peel_front)
+            ),
             fail_if_already_divisible=(
                 fail_if_already_divisible
                 if isinstance(fail_if_already_divisible, BoolAttr)

[rolfmorel]

@ftynse, @makslevental, @matthias-springer, as you guys worked on this file, could you maybe help with review? Thanks.

[makslevental]

@rolfmorel can you add a test?

[github-actions]

✅ With the latest revision this PR passed the Python code formatter.

[rolfmorel]

@makslevental Added a test.

Note that this change is just about exposing an option in Python. Whether the implementation of the option works as intended is covered by tests for the C++ code.

[makslevental]

Note that this change is just about exposing an option in Python. Whether the implementation of the option works as intended is covered by tests for the C++ code.

Yea sure I just wanted to make sure this option is kept in sync with ODS (currently there's no logical connection between these wrappers and the canonical ODS).

If you need me to merge after the test passes, let me know.

[rolfmorel]

Thanks for the explanation, @makslevental

I believe the tests have now passed. If you could merge the PR, that would be great!

[makslevental]

LGTM - thanks for filling in a missing piece.

[github-actions]

@rolfmorel Congratulations on having your first Pull Request (PR) merged into the LLVM Project!

Your changes will be combined with recent changes from other authors, then tested
by our build bots. If there is a problem with a build, you may recieve a report in an email or a comment on this PR.

Please check whether problems have been caused by your change specifically, as
the builds can include changes from many authors. It is not uncommon for your
change to be included in a build that fails due to someone else's changes, or
infrastructure issues.

How to do this, and the rest of the post-merge process, is covered in detail here.

If your change does cause a problem, it may be reverted, or you can revert it yourself.
This is a normal part of LLVM development. You can fix your changes and open a new PR to merge them again.

If you don't get any reports, no action is required from you. Your changes are working as expected, well done!