Skip to content

Conversation

@killeent
Copy link
Contributor

@killeent killeent commented Jun 9, 2017

We have done significant development towards creating TensorLib. We would like to move this into PyTorch. Most relevant for the review is the changes made to existing cwrap logic (both processing and the declarations themselves) that were necessary.

This diff creates TensorLib, current state:

  • TH/THC are bound, basic usage works (not robustly tested)

We don't expect the further work to be done to require changes to cwrap, so we want to get this in now so that we don't further diverge from PyTorch cwrap.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@killeent killeent left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Some notes for the reader.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@killeent killeent changed the title WIP: TensorLib TensorLib: a subset of functionality Jun 9, 2017
@ezyang
Copy link
Contributor

ezyang commented Jun 10, 2017

Cool stuff.

Could the commentary in the PR... perhaps be turned into more permanently durable comments in the source code? :)

Copy link
Contributor

@ezyang ezyang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Still need to carefully review cwrap and C++ templates.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@ezyang
Copy link
Contributor

ezyang commented Jun 11, 2017

Yeah, maybe it would be easier to merge just the cwrap stuff if it got separated out into its own PR from the rest of it, which can get bikeshedded and merged later.

@apaszke
Copy link
Contributor

apaszke commented Jun 11, 2017

@ezyang There are no user-visible changes in this PR, so we don't have to hurry with cwrap commits.

@zdevito
Copy link
Contributor

zdevito commented Jun 12, 2017

We are trying to get this merged now because there are other in-flight requests like broadcasting and indexing changes that will also impact the cwrap code and are trying to avoid a situation where we are continually fixing merge conflicts while this sits in a separate branch. Tomorrow I'll update the request with a bunch of the changes based on your feedback.

@killeent
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing in favor of #1865. The code for TensorLib/Aten will be developed in https://github.com/zdevito/aten.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants