Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Add a few state-related cc ops #2354

Open
wants to merge 11 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Add a few state-related cc ops #2354

wants to merge 11 commits into from

Conversation

annagrin
Copy link
Collaborator

@annagrin annagrin commented Nov 5, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Description

Add a few state-related quake ops:

  • quake.create_state
  • quake.delete_state
  • quake.get_number_of_qubits
  • quake.get_state

The ops are created by the kernel builder or the AST bridge and are either optimized away during argument synthesis, or converted to MLIR in QuakeToCodegen pass.

This simplifies passes that intend to remove those ops, such as DeleteStates , ArgumentConversion, or ReplaceStateWithKernel (to be added in the dependent PR below)

Note: this is also a prerequisite for creating a simpler quantum state synthesis passes: #2291

@annagrin annagrin mentioned this pull request Nov 5, 2024
Draft
@annagrin annagrin marked this pull request as draft November 5, 2024 18:02
@annagrin annagrin marked this pull request as ready for review November 12, 2024 18:10
schweitzpgi
schweitzpgi reviewed Nov 12, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@schweitzpgi schweitzpgi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm thinking we should put these in the quake dialect.

First, these really correspond to quantum operations in the end. As such they are successively lowered to (recursive?) kernel application or high-level abstract calls to a quantum simulator/emulator.

Second, they just don't have a classical computation semantics (see issue 1). In that context, they really aren't anything the compiler can reason about in terms of classical computation and behave as opaque calls to unknown external code.

include/cudaq/Optimizer/Dialect/CC/CCOps.td Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
include/cudaq/Optimizer/Dialect/CC/CCOps.td Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@annagrin
Merge with main
cbb7780 
Signed-off-by: Anna Gringauze <[email protected]>
@boschmitt
Copy link
Collaborator

I'm thinking we should put these in the quake dialect.

+1

I wonder with the cc.state type shouldn't also be moved to quake. Although it is a vector (array) of complex values, the moment we attach this specific interpretation for it, it jumps the fence to the quake side of things. (If we had left those as raw vector/array, then this interpretation would be given by the op that takes it, i.e., we would only know that a vector/array corresponds to a state if a quake.init_state use it as input.)

@annagrin
Copy link
Collaborator Author

annagrin commented Dec 2, 2024

I wonder with the cc.state type shouldn't also be moved to quake. Although it is a vector (array) of complex values, the moment we attach this specific interpretation for it, it jumps the fence to the quake side of things. (If we had left those as raw vector/array, then this interpretation would be given by the op that takes it, i.e., we would only know that a vector/array corresponds to a state if a quake.init_state use it as input.)

That sounds reasonable to me, but I would like to address it in a separate PR, to keep changes smaller.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@schweitzpgi schweitzpgi schweitzpgi left review comments

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@annagrin @boschmitt @schweitzpgi