c

common.typ

@@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
 #let alex_contact_url = "https://alex.vxcc.dev"
 
-
 #let to-bool(str) = {
   if str == "true" {
     return true

core-page-style.typ

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 #import "common.typ": *
 
 // pdfs need to be smaller text
-#let small-font-size = if is-web { 14pt } else { 10pt }
+#let small-font-size = if is-web { 14pt } else { 7pt }
-#let default-font-size = if is-web { 17pt } else { 12pt }
+#let default-font-size = if is-web { 17pt } else { 9pt }
 
 #let core-page-style(content) = {[
 

pages/compiler-pattern-matching.typ

@@ -20,15 +20,15 @@
 
 #section[
   = Introduction
-  Compilers often have to deal with find-and-replace inside the compiler IR (intermediate representation).
+  Compilers often have to deal with find-and-replace (pattern matching and rewriting) inside the compiler IR (intermediate representation).
 
   Common use cases for pattern matching in compilers:
   - "peephole optimizations": the most common kind of optimization in compilers.
-    They find a short sequence of code and replace that with some other code,
+    They find a short sequence of code and replace it with some other code.
-    for example replacing ```c x & 1 << b``` with a bit test.
+    For example replacing ```c x & (1 << b)``` with a bit test operation.
   - finding a sequence of operations for complex optimization passes to operate on:
-    advanced compilers have complex operations that can't really be performed with
+    advanced compilers have complex optimizations that can't really be performed with
-    simple IR operation replacements, and instead requires complex logic.
+    simple IR operation replacements, and instead require complex logic.
     Patterns are used here to find operation sequences where those optimizations
     are applicable, and also to extract details inside that sequence.
   - code generation: converting the IR to machine code / VM bytecode.
@@ -41,15 +41,12 @@
   Currently, most compilers mostly do this inside the compiler's source code.
   For example, in MLIR, *most* pattern matches are performed in C++ code.
 
-  The only advantage to this approach is that it will reduce compiler development time
+  The only advantage to this approach is that it doesn't require a complex pattern matching system.
-  if the compiler only needs to match a few patterns.
 ]
 
 #section[
   == Disadvantages
-  Doing pattern matching inside the compiler's source code has many disadvantages.
+  Doing pattern matching that way has many disadvantages.
-
-  I strongly advertise against doing pattern matching this way.
 
   \
   Some (but not all) disadvantages:
@@ -59,7 +56,7 @@
   - overall error-prone
 
   I myself did pattern matching this way in my old compiler backend,
-  and I speak from experience when I say that this approach sucks.
+  and I speak from experience when I say that this approach *sucks* (in most cases).
 ]
 
 #section[
@@ -71,7 +68,7 @@
 
 #section[
   An example is Cranelift's ISLE:
-  #context html-frame[```isle
+  #context html-frame[```lisp
   ;; x ^ x == 0.
   (rule (simplify (bxor (ty_int ty) x x))
         (subsume (iconst_u ty 0)))
@@ -112,15 +109,15 @@
 #section[
   = Pattern Matching Dialects
   This section also applies to compilers that don't use dialects, but do pattern matching this way.
-  For example GHC has the `RULES` pragma, which does something like this. I don't know where that is used, or if anyone even uses that...
+  For example, GHC has the `RULES` pragma, which does something like this. I however don't know what that is actually used for...
 
   \
-  I will also put this into the category of "structured pattern matching".
+  I will also put this method into the category of "structured pattern matching".
 
   \
   The main example of this is MLIR, with the `pdl` and the `transform` dialects.
-  Sadly few projects use these dialects, and instead have C++ pattern matching code.
+  Sadly few projects/people use these dialects, and instead use C++ pattern matching code.
-  One reason for this could be that they aren't documented very well.
+  I think that is because the dialects aren't documented very well.
 ]
 
 #section[
@@ -128,7 +125,7 @@
   Modern compilers, especially multi-level compilers, such as MLIR,
   have their operations grouped in "dialects".
 
-  Each dialect represents either a specific kind of operations, like arithmetic operations,
+  Each dialect represents either specific kind of operations, like arithmetic operations,
   or a specific compilation target/backend's operations, such as the `llvm` dialect in MLIR.
 
   Dialects commonly contain operations, data types, as well as optimization and dialect conversion passes.
@@ -137,8 +134,25 @@
 #section[
   == Core Concept
   Instead of, or in addition to having a separate language for pattern matching and rewrites,
-  the patterns and rewrites are represented in the compiler IR.
+  the IR patterns and rewrites are represented in the compiler IR itself.
-  This is mostly done in a separate dialect.
+  This is mostly done in a separate dialect, with dedicated operations for operating on compiler IR.
+]
+
+#section[
+  == Examples
+  MLIR's `pdl` dialect can be used to replace `arith.addi` with `my.add` like this:
+  #context html-frame[```llvm
+  pdl.pattern @replace_addi_with_my_add : benefit(1) {
+    %arg0 = pdl.operand
+    %arg1 = pdl.operand
+    %op = pdl.operation "arith.addi"(%arg0, %arg1)
+
+    pdl.rewrite %op {
+      %new_op = pdl.operation "my.add"(%arg0, %arg1) -> (%op)
+      pdl.replace %op with %new_op
+    }
+  }
+  ```]
 ]
 
 #section[
@@ -152,6 +166,14 @@
   - bragging rights: your compiler represents it's own patterns in it's own IR
 ]
 
+#section[
+  == Combining with a DSL
+  The best way to do pattern matching is to have a pattern matching / rewrite DSL,
+  that transpiles to pattern matching / rewrite dialect operations.
+
+  The advantage of this over just having a rewrite dialect is that it (should) make patterns even more readable.
+]
+
 #section[
   = More Advantages of Structured Pattern Matching
 
@@ -173,10 +195,18 @@
 #section[
   Optimizing compilers typically deal with code (mostly written by people)
   that is on a lower level than the compiler theoretically supports.
-  For example, humans tend to write code like this for testing for a bit: ```c x & 1 << b```,
+  For example, humans tend to write code like this for testing for a bit: ```c x & (1 << b)```,
-  but compilers tend to have a high-level bit test primitive.
+  but compilers tend to have a high-level bit test operation (with exceptions).
   A reason for having higher-level primitives is that it allows the compiler to do more high-level optimizations,
-  but also some target architectures have a bit test operation that is faster.
+  but also some target architectures have a bit test operation, that is more optimal.
+]
+
+// TODO! DEBUG INFORMATION
+
+#section[
+  LLVM actually doesn't have many dedicated operations like a bit-test operation,
+  and instead canonicalizes all bit-test patterns to ```c x & (1 << b) != 0```,
+  and matches for that in passes that expect bit test operations.
 ]
 
 #section[
@@ -186,7 +216,7 @@
 ]
 
 #section[
-  Now let's go back to the ```c x & 1 << b``` (bit test) example.
+  Now let's go back to the ```c x & (1 << b)``` (bit test) example.
   Optimizing compilers should be able to detect that pattern, and also other bit test patterns (like ```c x & (1 << b) > 0```),
   and then replace those with a bit test operation.
   But they also have to be able to convert bit test operations back to their implementation for targets that don't have a bit test operation.
@@ -213,6 +243,9 @@
   = Conclusion
   One can see how pattern matching dialects are the best option by far.
 
+  \
+  Someone wanted me to insert a takeaway here, but I won't.
+
   \
   PS: I'll hunt down everyone who still decides to do pattern matching in their compiler source after reading this article.
 ]