Skip to content

Comments

Consider all dimensions before deciding to slide over a new dimension#7875

Merged
TH3CHARLie merged 4 commits intomainfrom
abadams/fix_7872
Oct 5, 2023
Merged

Consider all dimensions before deciding to slide over a new dimension#7875
TH3CHARLie merged 4 commits intomainfrom
abadams/fix_7872

Conversation

@abadams
Copy link
Member

@abadams abadams commented Oct 4, 2023

Even ones we've already slid over. The previous version of this code
could try to slide over a loop where multiple dimensions depend on the
loop var, because it ignored dimensions that had already been slid over.
Moving a check resolves the issue.

Fixes #7872

Even ones we've already slid over. The previous version of this code
could try to slide over a loop where multiple dimensions depend on the
loop var, because it ignored dimensions that had already been slid over.
Moving a check resolves the issue.

Fixes #7872
Copy link
Contributor

@TH3CHARLie TH3CHARLie left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, waiting the remaining build go green

@TH3CHARLie TH3CHARLie merged commit 120e5fd into main Oct 5, 2023
ardier pushed a commit to ardier/Halide-mutation that referenced this pull request Mar 3, 2024
…halide#7875)

* Don't deduce unreachability from predicated out of bounds stores

Fixes halide#7873

* Consider all dimensions before deciding to slide over a new dimension

Even ones we've already slid over. The previous version of this code
could try to slide over a loop where multiple dimensions depend on the
loop var, because it ignored dimensions that had already been slid over.
Moving a check resolves the issue.

Fixes halide#7872
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Wrong results when store_root and compute_at inner split

2 participants