Skip to content

add unbacked strict mode #147333

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

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

bobrenjc93
Copy link
Contributor

@bobrenjc93 bobrenjc93 commented Feb 17, 2025

Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):

fixes #145775

This is the first step in introducing a "strict" mode where we don't silent specialize and don't silent graph break. At a high level when we do mark_unbacked(... strict=True), anytime we specialize an unbacked symint we will explicitly error and tell the user their unbacked dimension was specialized to a single value.

cc @ezyang @SherlockNoMad @EikanWang @jgong5 @wenzhe-nrv @voznesenskym @penguinwu @Guobing-Chen @XiaobingSuper @zhuhaozhe @blzheng @jiayisunx @chenyang78 @kadeng @chauhang @amjames

[ghstack-poisoned]
Copy link

pytorch-bot bot commented Feb 17, 2025

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/147333

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

❌ 3 New Failures

As of commit 5445c8f with merge base a200552 (image):

NEW FAILURES - The following jobs have failed:

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

cc ezyang SherlockNoMad EikanWang jgong5 wenzhe-nrv voznesenskym penguinwu Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng jiayisunx chenyang78 kadeng chauhang amjames

[ghstack-poisoned]
@bobrenjc93 bobrenjc93 added the topic: not user facing topic category label Feb 17, 2025
bobrenjc93 added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 17, 2025
ghstack-source-id: c2f84d9
Pull Request resolved: #147333
@bobrenjc93 bobrenjc93 marked this pull request as ready for review February 17, 2025 22:38
Copy link
Contributor

@laithsakka laithsakka left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

left some comments can you add a summary?

fixes #145775

This is the first step in introducing a "strict" mode where we don't silent specialize and don't silent graph break. At a high level when we do mark_unbacked(... strict=True), anytime we specialize an unbacked symint we will explicitly error and tell the user their unbacked dimension was specialized to a single value.

[ghstack-poisoned]
Copy link
Contributor

@laithsakka laithsakka left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

just one comment

fixes #145775

This is the first step in introducing a "strict" mode where we don't silent specialize and don't silent graph break. At a high level when we do mark_unbacked(... strict=True), anytime we specialize an unbacked symint we will explicitly error and tell the user their unbacked dimension was specialized to a single value.

[ghstack-poisoned]
bobrenjc93 added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 18, 2025
ghstack-source-id: 844baa8
Pull Request resolved: #147333
@bobrenjc93
Copy link
Contributor Author

@pytorchbot merge

@pytorch-bot pytorch-bot bot added the ciflow/trunk Trigger trunk jobs on your pull request label Feb 18, 2025
@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Collaborator

Merge started

Your 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

Advanced Debugging
Check the merge workflow status
here

@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Collaborator

Merge failed

Reason: 2 jobs have failed, first few of them are: linux-binary-manywheel / manywheel-py3_9-cuda12_4-test / test, linux-binary-manywheel / manywheel-py3_9-cuda12_6-test / test

Details for Dev Infra team Raised by workflow job

@bobrenjc93
Copy link
Contributor Author

@pytorchbot merge -i

@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Collaborator

Merge started

Your change will be merged while ignoring the following 3 checks: linux-binary-manywheel / manywheel-py3_9-cuda12_4-test / test, linux-binary-manywheel / manywheel-py3_9-cuda12_6-test / test, linux-binary-manywheel / manywheel-py3_9-cuda12_8-test / test

Learn more about merging in the wiki.

Questions? Feedback? Please reach out to the PyTorch DevX Team

Advanced Debugging
Check the merge workflow status
here

@github-actions github-actions bot deleted the gh/bobrenjc93/278/head branch March 23, 2025 02:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ciflow/inductor ciflow/trunk Trigger trunk jobs on your pull request fx Merged module: dynamo release notes: fx release notes category topic: not user facing topic category
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants