-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24.7k
[inductor] [bug fix] Fix conv
on processing uint
#145136
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
Conversation
🔗 Helpful Links🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/145136
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ❌ 30 New FailuresAs of commit f5c60f2 with merge base 425804d ( NEW FAILURES - The following jobs have failed:
This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
@pytorchbot label "topic: not user facing" |
I am very sorry that I deleted the previous PR because of my misoperation :( |
@jansel , mind retaking a look? |
this time, it should be fine. |
@pytorchbot merge |
Merge startedYour change will be merged once all checks pass (ETA 0-4 Hours). Learn more about merging in the wiki. Questions? Feedback? Please reach out to the PyTorch DevX Team |
Merge failedReason: 1 mandatory check(s) failed. The first few are: Dig deeper by viewing the failures on hud |
CI was broaken just now? |
The lint errors are real. Not sure about the others, you could try rebasing. |
got it, I will investigate this :) |
I have rewritten UT by testing this case on CPU. Should I use |
It seems that regression testing fails on here (?) pytorch/test/inductor/test_cpu_cpp_wrapper.py Lines 286 to 291 in aab7925
forgive me I can't understand why. :( |
What is the error from the cpu_cpp_wraper? Can you reproduce it locally? |
I have run the ut as follows locally
It throws the error
I think maybe My change adds the error check for |
Did this previously work? I'm assuming the "q" in qconv2d is quantized, so maybe this is breaking that. |
Sry, not sure about "this previously work". Do you mean whether this UT works in an older pytorch version or before my code change? |
yes |
I have done this and found that some UTs in
how should we address this conflict? I think a "dirty" solution is to bring this type check to some other places instead of |
We shouldn't break the existing behavior. Might need to look more into what the test is doing. |
I'll try my best to investigate 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.
Re-request review once I should take another look at this
Looks like this PR hasn't been updated in a while so we're going to go ahead and mark this as |
Fixes #144314
ut
cc @voznesenskym @penguinwu @EikanWang @jgong5 @Guobing-Chen @XiaobingSuper @zhuhaozhe @blzheng @wenzhe-nrv @jiayisunx @ipiszy @yf225 @chenyang78 @kadeng @muchulee8 @ColinPeppler @amjames @desertfire @chauhang @aakhundov