8000 Remove __ubsan_ignore_undefined__ by cyyever · Pull Request #143252 · pytorch/pytorch · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to content

Remove __ubsan_ignore_undefined__ #143252

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

cyyever
Copy link
Collaborator
@cyyever cyyever commented Dec 14, 2024

Copy link
pytorch-bot bot commented Dec 14, 2024

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/143252

Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed.

✅ No Failures

As of commit 858854d with merge base 4273e1a (image):
💚 Looks good so far! There are no failures yet. 💚

This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes.

@pytorch-bot pytorch-bot bot added the module: cpu CPU specific problem (e.g., perf, algorithm) label Dec 14, 2024
@cyyever
Copy link
Collaborator Author
cyyever commented Dec 14, 2024

@pytorchbot label "topic: not user facing"

@pytorch-bot pytorch-bot bot added the topic: not user facing topic category label Dec 14, 2024
@cyyever
Copy link
Collaborator Author
cyyever commented Dec 15, 2024

@pytorchbot rebase -b main

@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Collaborator

@pytorchbot started a rebase job onto refs/remotes/origin/main. Check the current status here

@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Collaborator

Successfully rebased ubsan_fix23 onto refs/remotes/origin/main, please pull locally before adding more changes (for example, via git checkout ubsan_fix23 && git pull --rebase)

@ezyang
Copy link
Contributor
ezyang commented Dec 16, 2024

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure the ignore undefined is at least needed to suppress complaints about signed integer overflow

@cyyever
Copy link
Collaborator Author
cyyever commented Dec 16, 2024

They are not triggered in the tests, so currently it is safe. Furthermore, if that happens in re-enabled tests or new tests, we should fix the overflows, perhaps by clipping the results to the upper type bounds like INT_MAX to minimise numerical errors.

@cyyever
Copy link
Collaborator Author
cyyever commented Dec 16, 2024

The purpose of removing the annotations is to disclose the hidden bugs and find a way to fix them.

@soulitzer soulitzer added the triaged This issue has been looked at a team member, and triaged and prioritized into an appropriate module label Dec 17, 2024
@cyyever cyyever requested a review from albanD December 19, 2024 13:25
@ezyang ezyang removed their request for review January 14, 2025 21:23
@cyyever cyyever requested a review from Skylion007 March 14, 2025 10:36
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like this PR hasn't been updated in a while so we're going to go ahead and mark this as Stale.
Feel free to remove the Stale label if you feel this was a mistake.
If you are unable to remove the Stale label please contact a maintainer in order to do so.
If you want the bot to never mark this PR stale again, add the no-stale label.
Stale pull requests will automatically be closed after 30 days of inactivity.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label May 13, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
module: cpu CPU specific problem (e.g., perf, algorithm) open source Stale topic: not user facing topic category triaged This issue has been looked at a team member, and triaged and prioritized into an appropriate module
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants
0