Some operations include a backend matcher for specialized operations. We
map these back to generics so they appropriately match to the high
performance versions. This is done for the attention operation.
After noticing a number of commits with unrelated formatting changes,
I think something was changed with clang-format at one point and we're
seeing a number of unrelated changes. Doing a refresh can help avoid
this.
The changes made here came from
```
find lib -iname *.h -o -iname *.cpp | xargs clang-format -i --style=llvm
find include -iname *.h -o -iname *.cpp | xargs clang-format -i --style=llvm
find projects -iname *.h -o -iname *.cpp | xargs clang-format -i --style=llvm
```
This is a first step towards the structure we discussed here:
https://gist.github.com/stellaraccident/931b068aaf7fa56f34069426740ebf20
There are two primary goals:
1. Separate the core project (C++ dialects and conversions) from the
hard PyTorch dependencies. We move all such things into projects/pt1 as
a starting point since they are presently entangled with PT1-era APIs.
Additional work can be done to disentangle components from that
(specifically LTC is identified as likely ultimately living in a
`projects/ltc`).
2. Create space for native PyTorch2 Dynamo-based infra to be upstreamed
without needing to co-exist with the original TorchScript path.
Very little changes in this path with respect to build layering or
options. These can be updated in a followup without commingling
directory structure changes.
This also takes steps toward a couple of other layering enhancements:
* Removes the llvm-external-projects/torch-mlir-dialects sub-project,
collapsing it into the main tree.
* Audits and fixes up the core C++ build to account for issues found
while moving things. This is just an opportunistic pass through but
roughly ~halves the number of build actions for the project from the
high 4000's to the low 2000's.
It deviates from the discussed plan by having a `projects/` tree instead
of `compat/`. As I was thinking about it, this will better accommodate
the follow-on code movement.
Once things are roughly in place and the CI passing, followups will
focus on more in-situ fixes and cleanups.
Rob Suderman
Quinn Dawkins
Stella Laurenzo