dialects: (llvm) Implement custom format for FuncOp

[sueszli]

Allows not just generic format:

"llvm.func"() <{
  sym_name = "binops",
  function_type = !llvm.func<void (i32, i32, f32, f32)>,
  CConv = #llvm.cconv<ccc>,
  linkage = #llvm.linkage<external>,
  visibility_ = 0 : i64
}> ({
^bb0(%arg0 : i32, %arg1 : i32, %arg2 : f32, %arg3 : f32):
  %0 = llvm.add %arg0, %arg1 : i32
  // ... ops ...
  "llvm.return"() : () -> ()
}) : () -> ()

But also a prettier custom format:

llvm.func @binops(%arg0: i32, %arg1: i32, %arg2: f32, %arg3: f32) {
  %0 = llvm.add %arg0, %arg1 : i32
  %1 = llvm.fadd %arg2, %arg3 : f32
  // ... ops ...
  llvm.return
}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 80.85106% with 18 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 86.15%. Comparing base (b230f09) to head (f120376).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
xdsl/dialects/llvm.py	65.21%	10 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️
xdsl/dialects/utils/format.py	95.83%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5588      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   86.16%   86.15%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         394      394              
  Lines       56390    56461      +71     
  Branches     6496     6514      +18     
==========================================
+ Hits        48588    48642      +54     
- Misses       6269     6279      +10     
- Partials     1533     1540       +7     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[sueszli]

Note to self: Increase coverage

[sueszli]

Todo:

• increasing coverage
• figuring out the right function_type

[superlopuh]

Shouldn't this be set as attributes? Can you please add a test for this?

[sueszli]

Resolved: 6f2b588 (I believe)?

[superlopuh]

Not quite, can you please add an attribute dictionary with something like {hello = "world} and test that it's parsed and re-printed correctly?

[sueszli]

Thank you for the clear example - now I suddenly see what you meant!

[sueszli]

Resolved: f120376

[superlopuh]

were these changes intended to be included in this PR?

[sueszli]

They could be a seperate PR where I just try to maximize coverage. I agree. This is getting very confusing.

[superlopuh]

Hmm, I'm wondering what you mean. Do you mean coverage of the llvm.py file, or the diff for adding custom syntax for llvm functions? If coverage of llvm.py, then that's great but should be in a separate PR. The pytest tests don't depend on custom syntax for llvm.func

[sueszli]

Yes - the coverage of the llvm.py file. I'll revert the unnecessary tests here and make a new PR

[sueszli]

Resolved: #5603

[superlopuh]

this seems like a spurious change?

[sueszli]

This was intentional - just aggressively trying to maximize coverage. But it's a bit pointless.

[sueszli]

Resolved: 7f17ee4

[sueszli]

Moved the pretty llvm.return and coverage tests into a seperate PR.

This PR should be more focused now.

Will resolve open comments within this PR now.