[jit] fix bug in alias analysis #18146
Closed
Conversation
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
We handled hasWriters() incorrectly in the case of wildcards. There's even a comment describing the correct behavior. Sad!
facebook-github-bot
added
the
oncall: jit
|
Should we have an amended |
|
I prefer using the cpp tests because they allow us to directly verify the behavior of AliasDB (which the frontend shouldn't "know" about). I can make a regression test that confirms that patterns like the one you observed get correctly CSE'd though. |
wanchaol
approved these changes
Mar 19, 2019
|
@pytorchbot merge this please |
pytorchbot
added
the
merge-this-please
|
This pull request has been merged in 794c631. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Stack from ghstack:
We handled hasWriters() incorrectly in the case of wildcards. There's
even a comment describing the correct behavior. Sad!
Much thanks to @t-vi for tracking this down and suggesting the fix!
Differential Revision: D14524208