[mlir python] Port in-tree dialects to nanobind. (#119924)

This is a companion to #118583, although it can be landed independently
because since #117922 dialects do not have to use the same Python

[mlir python] Port in-tree dialects to nanobind. (#119924)

This is a companion to #118583, although it can be landed independently
because since #117922 dialects do not have to use the same Python
binding framework as the Python core code.

This PR ports all of the in-tree dialect and pass extensions to
nanobind, with the exception of those that remain for testing pybind11
support.

This PR also:
* removes CollectDiagnosticsToStringScope from NanobindAdaptors.h. This
was overlooked in a previous PR and it is duplicated in Diagnostics.h.

---------

Co-authored-by: Jacques Pienaar <jpienaar@google.com>

show more ...

[mlir python] Port Python core code to nanobind. (#120473)

Relands #118583, with a fix for Python 3.8 compatibility. It was not
possible to set the buffer protocol accessers via slots in Python 3.8

[mlir python] Port Python core code to nanobind. (#120473)

Relands #118583, with a fix for Python 3.8 compatibility. It was not
possible to set the buffer protocol accessers via slots in Python 3.8.

Why? https://nanobind.readthedocs.io/en/latest/why.html says it better
than I can, but my primary motivation for this change is to improve MLIR
IR construction time from JAX.

For a complicated Google-internal LLM model in JAX, this change improves
the MLIR
lowering time by around 5s (out of around 30s), which is a significant
speedup for simply switching binding frameworks.

To a large extent, this is a mechanical change, for instance changing
`pybind11::` to `nanobind::`.

Notes:
* this PR needs Nanobind 2.4.0, because it needs a bug fix
(https://github.com/wjakob/nanobind/pull/806) that landed in that
release.
* this PR does not port the in-tree dialect extension modules. They can
be ported in a future PR.
* I removed the py::sibling() annotations from def_static and def_class
in `PybindAdapters.h`. These ask pybind11 to try to form an overload
with an existing method, but it's not possible to form mixed
pybind11/nanobind overloads this ways and the parent class is now
defined in nanobind. Better solutions may be possible here.
* nanobind does not contain an exact equivalent of pybind11's buffer
protocol support. It was not hard to add a nanobind implementation of a
similar API.
* nanobind is pickier about casting to std::vector<bool>, expecting that
the input is a sequence of bool types, not truthy values. In a couple of
places I added code to support truthy values during casting.
* nanobind distinguishes bytes (`nb::bytes`) from strings (e.g.,
`std::string`). This required nb::bytes overloads in a few places.

show more ...

Revert "[mlir python] Port Python core code to nanobind. (#118583)"

This reverts commit 41bd35b58bb482fd466aa4b13aa44a810ad6470f.

Breakage detected, rolling back.

[mlir python] Port Python core code to nanobind. (#118583)

Why? https://nanobind.readthedocs.io/en/latest/why.html says it better
than I can, but my primary motivation for this change is to improve

[mlir python] Port Python core code to nanobind. (#118583)

Why? https://nanobind.readthedocs.io/en/latest/why.html says it better
than I can, but my primary motivation for this change is to improve MLIR
IR construction time from JAX.

For a complicated Google-internal LLM model in JAX, this change improves
the MLIR
lowering time by around 5s (out of around 30s), which is a significant
speedup for simply switching binding frameworks.

To a large extent, this is a mechanical change, for instance changing
`pybind11::`
to `nanobind::`.

Notes:
* this PR needs Nanobind 2.4.0, because it needs a bug fix
(https://github.com/wjakob/nanobind/pull/806) that landed in that
release.
* this PR does not port the in-tree dialect extension modules. They can
be ported in a future PR.
* I removed the py::sibling() annotations from def_static and def_class
in `PybindAdapters.h`. These ask pybind11 to try to form an overload
with an existing method, but it's not possible to form mixed
pybind11/nanobind overloads this ways and the parent class is now
defined in nanobind. Better solutions may be possible here.
* nanobind does not contain an exact equivalent of pybind11's buffer
protocol support. It was not hard to add a nanobind implementation of a
similar API.
* nanobind is pickier about casting to std::vector<bool>, expecting that
the input is a sequence of bool types, not truthy values. In a couple of
places I added code to support truthy values during casting.
* nanobind distinguishes bytes (`nb::bytes`) from strings (e.g.,
`std::string`). This required nb::bytes overloads in a few places.

show more ...

[mlir] Add PDL C & Python usage (#94714)

Following a rather direct approach to expose PDL usage from C and then
Python. This doesn't yes plumb through adding support for custom
matchers through th

[mlir] Add PDL C & Python usage (#94714)

Following a rather direct approach to expose PDL usage from C and then
Python. This doesn't yes plumb through adding support for custom
matchers through this interface, so constrained to basics initially.

This also exposes greedy rewrite driver. Only way currently to define
patterns is via PDL (just to keep small). The creation of the PDL
pattern module could be improved to avoid folks potentially accessing
the module used to construct it post construction. No ergonomic work
done yet.

---------

Signed-off-by: Jacques Pienaar <jpienaar@google.com>

show more ...