remove _is_foreach_op codegen special cases, clean up mutable return type checks#76190
Closed
bdhirsh wants to merge 6 commits intogh/bdhirsh/216/basefrom
Closed
remove _is_foreach_op codegen special cases, clean up mutable return type checks#76190bdhirsh wants to merge 6 commits intogh/bdhirsh/216/basefrom
bdhirsh wants to merge 6 commits intogh/bdhirsh/216/basefrom
Conversation
…type checks [ghstack-poisoned]
This was referenced Apr 21, 2022
Contributor
🔗 Helpful links
💊 CI failures summary and remediationsAs of commit 12f91b3 (more details on the Dr. CI page): Expand to see more💚 💚 Looks good so far! There are no failures yet. 💚 💚 This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI (expand for details).Please report bugs/suggestions to the (internal) Dr. CI Users group. |
This was referenced Apr 21, 2022
…ble return type checks" This PR cleans up some of the codegen type checks / special casing for foreach ops. In particular, as described in 76049, schemas that mutate their inputs and return the mutated input directly as an output are only really useful for method chaining. If your schema involves a mutable input that you can't easily method chain on (like a `Tensor?` or a `Tensor[]`), then we expect the return type to be void. We actually also have to allow return types of tuples of mutable tensors, since we have a bunch of ops that fit that description today. [ghstack-poisoned]
…ble return type checks" This PR cleans up some of the codegen type checks / special casing for foreach ops. In particular, as described in 76049, schemas that mutate their inputs and return the mutated input directly as an output are only really useful for method chaining. If your schema involves a mutable input that you can't easily method chain on (like a `Tensor?` or a `Tensor[]`), then we expect the return type to be void. We actually also have to allow return types of tuples of mutable tensors, since we have a bunch of ops that fit that description today. [ghstack-poisoned]
…ble return type checks" This PR cleans up some of the codegen type checks / special casing for foreach ops. In particular, as described in 76049, schemas that mutate their inputs and return the mutated input directly as an output are only really useful for method chaining. If your schema involves a mutable input that you can't easily method chain on (like a `Tensor?` or a `Tensor[]`), then we expect the return type to be void. We actually also have to allow return types of tuples of mutable tensors, since we have a bunch of ops that fit that description today. [ghstack-poisoned]
…ble return type checks" This PR cleans up some of the codegen type checks / special casing for foreach ops. In particular, as described in #76049, schemas that mutate their inputs and return the mutated input directly as an output are only really useful for method chaining. If your schema involves a mutable input that you can't easily method chain on (like a `Tensor?` or a `Tensor[]`), then we expect the return type to be void. We actually also have to allow return types of tuples of mutable tensors, since we have a bunch of ops that fit that description today. [ghstack-poisoned]
This was referenced Apr 25, 2022
…ble return type checks" This PR cleans up some of the codegen type checks / special casing for foreach ops. In particular, as described in #76049, schemas that mutate their inputs and return the mutated input directly as an output are only really useful for method chaining. If your schema involves a mutable input that you can't easily method chain on (like a `Tensor?` or a `Tensor[]`), then we expect the return type to be void. We actually also have to allow return types of tuples of mutable tensors, since we have a bunch of ops that fit that description today. [ghstack-poisoned]
Collaborator
Author
|
@pytorchbot merge this please |
Collaborator
|
Merge failed due to Command Raised by https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/actions/runs/2223000776 |
facebook-github-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 26, 2022
…type checks (#76190) Summary: Pull Request resolved: #76190 Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang Test Plan: contbuild & OSS CI, see https://hud.pytorch.org/commit/pytorch/pytorch/74e93f727a732c9a5208c75eca0f9551399372fd Reviewed By: osalpekar Differential Revision: D35938193 Pulled By: bdhirsh fbshipit-source-id: 5a57ac39891f0f74184d7420189a9b09125d9a7f
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR cleans up some of the codegen type checks / special casing for foreach ops.
In particular, as described in #76049, schemas that mutate their inputs and return the mutated input directly as an output are only really useful for method chaining. If your schema involves a mutable input that you can't easily method chain on (like a
Tensor?or aTensor[]), then we expect the return type to be void.We actually also have to allow return types of tuples of mutable tensors, since we have a bunch of ops that fit that description today.
Stack from ghstack: