Great to see this chat around this feature being revived!
@makslevental’s PoC with it being placed in the location info seems reasonable, it was something I was hesitant about due to concerns about “breaking clients of location info”. But thinking about my recent workflows in MLIR, I would be more inconvenienced by there being extra attributes in the generic IR, compared to in the location info.
In the previous version I had support for:
I’m taking a look at the new code to see what the coverage is.
I agree with this (although I’m sometimes guilty of it). There’s perhaps even an argument to be made for having SSA name randomisation as a testing feature, to catch tests that rely on SSA names. This could downstream of this feature, but it’s something to keep in mind.