This repository was archived by the owner on May 22, 2023. It is now read-only.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
[Pass] Canonicalizing Bindings #233
[Pass] Canonicalizing Bindings #233
Changes from 10 commits
afdf98a
0c964f9
febe2cb
ee70408
197f4a4
edb9d6a
584ae08
c1af0f4
6b221bd
feb4766
077bbff
9e9afa1
13086d7
7318084
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is my understanding correct that this block of code is not needed if we allow type refinement. So
z: Object = x
can be refined toz: Tensor = x
. So do we still need this?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am under the impression that we should respect user annotations when they appear, which is why I've done it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I went back and checked the notes in August 16, 2022 meeting. Seems like this topic is under discussion. Would be great if can reach consensus on this soon.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When is this required? None of the tests check for this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The tests do fail if you leave this out. This is because visiting
shape_
can cause variables inside theshape_
field to change. This comes up in the test cases withrelax.add
, since theshape_
for that is aPackedFunc
call that uses variables in the program.