Skip to content

[MLIR] Existing Python bindings issues #139785

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

Open
makslevental opened this issue May 13, 2025 · 2 comments
Open

[MLIR] Existing Python bindings issues #139785

makslevental opened this issue May 13, 2025 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
mlir:python MLIR Python bindings

Comments

@makslevental
Copy link
Contributor

makslevental commented May 13, 2025

I plan to propose a partial rewrite/refactor of the Python bindings later this year. This github issue collects up some of the problems I've noticed/identified and some associated PRs/issues

  1. Decoupled/divorced lifetimes between C++/C/Python; succinctly this revolves around liveOperations
  2. The CMake build system is "mysterious and important", which is to say it's abstruse and inflexible; succinctly this affects modularity vis-a-vis piecemeal dialect registration/distribution
  3. Upstream and downstream bindings constitute a two-tier system, with upstream being first class and downstream being second class; specifically I'm referring to the difference between upstream types/attrs and downstream types/attrs
    • which gets at a broader problem/issue/limitation: none of the upstream impl code is reusable because none of the headers are in mlir/include. Note, this is not malicious/accidental, but is connected to the aforementioned build system issues
  4. Minor/ungrouped outstanding issues:
@makslevental makslevental self-assigned this May 13, 2025
@llvmbot llvmbot added the mlir label May 13, 2025
@llvmbot
Copy link
Member

llvmbot commented May 13, 2025

@llvm/issue-subscribers-mlir

Author: Maksim Levental (makslevental)

I plan to propose a partial rewrite/refactor of the Python bindings later this year. This github issue collects up some of the problems I've noticed/identified and some associated PRs/issues
  1. Decoupled/divorced lifetimes between C++/C/Python; succinctly this revolves around liveOperations
  2. The CMake build system is "mysterious and important", which is to say it's abstruse and inflexible; succinctly this affects modularity vis-a-vis piecemeal dialect registration/distribution

@EugeneZelenko EugeneZelenko added mlir:python MLIR Python bindings and removed mlir labels May 13, 2025
@llvmbot
Copy link
Member

llvmbot commented May 13, 2025

@llvm/issue-subscribers-mlir-python

Author: Maksim Levental (makslevental)

I plan to propose a partial rewrite/refactor of the Python bindings later this year. This github issue collects up some of the problems I've noticed/identified and some associated PRs/issues
  1. Decoupled/divorced lifetimes between C++/C/Python; succinctly this revolves around liveOperations
  2. The CMake build system is "mysterious and important", which is to say it's abstruse and inflexible; succinctly this affects modularity vis-a-vis piecemeal dialect registration/distribution
  3. Upstream and downstream bindings constitute a two-tier system, with upstream being first class and downstream being second class; specifically I'm referring to the difference between upstream types/attrs and downstream types/attrs
    • which gets at a broader problem/issue/limitation: none of the upstream impl code is reusable because none of the headers are in mlir/include. Note, this is not malicious/accidental, but is connected to the aforementioned build system issues
  4. Minor/ungrouped outstanding issues:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
mlir:python MLIR Python bindings
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants