Pull Request resolved: #95099


ghstack-source-id: 180611874

Differential Revision: [D43408128](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D43408128/)

Pull Request resolved: #95099


ghstack-source-id: 181045688

Differential Revision: [D43408128](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D43408128/)

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work".

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work".

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work".

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work".

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work".

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work".

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work".

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work".

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

Pull Request resolved: #95099

ghstack-source-id: f85d0d8

Differential Revision: [D43408128](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D43408128/)

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work".

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx peterbell10 desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work".

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx peterbell10 desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work".

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx peterbell10 desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work".

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx peterbell10 desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work".

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx peterbell10 desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work".

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx peterbell10 desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work".

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx peterbell10 desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work".

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx peterbell10 desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work".

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx peterbell10 desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work".

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx peterbell10 desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work". As part of this, I have to turn off unspecialization by default, as there are still latent bugs in inductor.

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx peterbell10 desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work". As part of this, I have to turn off unspecialization by default, as there are still latent bugs in inductor.

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx peterbell10 desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work". As part of this, I have to turn off unspecialization by default, as there are still latent bugs in inductor.

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx peterbell10 desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work". As part of this, I have to turn off unspecialization by default, as there are still latent bugs in inductor.

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyangmeta.com>

cc soumith voznesenskym yanboliang penguinwu anijain2305 EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng Xia-Weiwen wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx peterbell10 desertfire

[ghstack-poisoned]

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work". As part of this, I have to turn off unspecialization by default, as there are still latent bugs in inductor.

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from #95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes #95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@meta.com>

Pull Request resolved: #95621
Approved by: https://github.com/jansel, https://github.com/Chillee

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work". As part of this, I have to turn off unspecialization by default, as there are still latent bugs in inductor.

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from pytorch/pytorch#95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes pytorch/pytorch#95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@meta.com>

Pull Request resolved: pytorch/pytorch#95621
Approved by: https://github.com/jansel, https://github.com/Chillee

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work". As part of this, I have to turn off unspecialization by default, as there are still latent bugs in inductor.

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from pytorch/pytorch#95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes pytorch/pytorch#95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@meta.com>

Pull Request resolved: pytorch/pytorch#95621
Approved by: https://github.com/jansel, https://github.com/Chillee

OK, so this PR used to be about reducing the number of constants we specialize on, but it turns out that unspecialization was ~essentially never used (because we still constant specialized way too aggressively) and I ended up having to fix a bunch of issues to actually get tests to pass. So this PR is now "make int unspecialization actually work". As part of this, I have to turn off unspecialization by default, as there are still latent bugs in inductor.

The general strategy is that an unspecialized int is represented as a SymInt. Representing it as a 0d tensor (which is what the code used to do) is untenable: (1) we often need unspecialized ints to participate in size computations, but we have no way of propagating sympy expressions through tensor compute, and (2) a lot of APIs work when passed SymInt, but not when passed a Tensor. However, I continue to represent Numpy scalars as Tensors, as they are rarely used for size computation and they have an explicit dtype, so they are more accurately modeled as 0d tensors.

* I folded in the changes from pytorch#95099 as I cannot represent unspecialized ints as SymInts without also turning on dynamic shapes. This also eliminates the necessity for test_unspec.py, as toggling specialization without dynamic shapes doesn't do anything. As dynamic shapes defaults to unspecializing, I just deleted this entirely; for the specialization case, I rely on regular static shape tests to catch it. (Hypothetically, we could also rerun all the tests with dynamic shapes, but WITH int/float specialization, but this seems... not that useful? I mean, I guess export wants it, but I'd kind of like our Source heuristic to improve enough that export doesn't have to toggle this either.)
* Only 0/1 integers get specialized by default now
* A hodgepodge of fixes. I'll comment on the PR about them.

Fixes pytorch#95469

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@meta.com>

Pull Request resolved: pytorch#95621
Approved by: https://github.com/jansel, https://github.com/Chillee