- 
                Notifications
    
You must be signed in to change notification settings  - Fork 357
 
Prevent union-finding cycles for shared qspecs #3011
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
          
     Merged
      
      
    
      
        
          +127
        
        
          −9
        
        
          
        
      
    
  
  
     Merged
                    Changes from all commits
      Commits
    
    
            Show all changes
          
          
            6 commits
          
        
        Select commit
          Hold shift + click to select a range
      
      ea23e3c
              
                Prevent union-finding cycles for shared qspecs
              
              
                 0b7d026
              
                Add test case of implicit sharing with two ops sharing one input
              
              
                 6cf0529
              
                Simplify the model that reproduces the recursion bug
              
              
                 6942a40
              
                Avoid forming a cycle by reversing the edge
              
              
                 b1850c0
              
                Add context of recursion bug in the test case
              
              
                 b5e4ea8
              
                Swap order of branches in if statement
              
              
                 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
          Failed to load comments.   
        
        
          
      Loading
        
  Jump to
        
          Jump to file
        
      
      
          Failed to load files.   
        
        
          
      Loading
        
  Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
  
    
      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
    
  
  
    
              
  
    
      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
    
  
  
    
              
      
      Oops, something went wrong.
        
    
  
  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.
  
    
  
    
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.
will this be more confusing than just assign an ordering before hand?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
also I haven't thought through, but wondering if it's possible that root_child can go around and end up pointing to root_parent again
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
cc @kimishpatel is this the cycle detection you have in mind?
seems OK to me, if this is the only thing that's needed
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.
I am not sure. Isnt the cycle already formed (parent_qspec.edge_or_node == root_child) before we come here. it feels we are detecting that and correcting it. I might be wrong though. I
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.
@kimishpatel Prior to forming the problematic union, we are in the state that is shown in figure below about to assign
shared_with_map[(clone,eq)] = (x,eq). So there's not already a union we are correct. We are just reversing the green edge by assigningshared_with_map[(x,eq)] = (clone,eq)to make the edge point in the same direction as the blue one (edge_or_node_to_qspec).