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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Pulse Compiler
SetSequence
pass #11980Pulse Compiler
SetSequence
pass #11980Changes from 15 commits
7cd1396
a35abed
592aba6
8c83957
b670356
edf3749
52158f6
1f0e13c
8c19fbf
4b91f55
21dc703
13393b4
c828ab5
f363271
50ec916
e185741
01803ed
7cc9186
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
This violates typehint (though type is not important in Python). Do you want to remove Target from the base passes?
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.
As I commented on the original compiler PR, we don't always need Target. I think we can make it optional.
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.
Can we implement the logic like this? Statefull pass sometimes causes edge cases. For example, in the current implementation some unexpected things could happen if you run the same pass manager instance twice for different inputs.
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.
The issue of re-running a pass is something that bothered me too. Do we override existing data? Raise an error? There's a "global" decision to be made here, because it's applicable to all passes.
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.
For the current pass, I modified it per your suggestion.
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.
There is definitely a demand for rerunning the pass manager, for example #11784. I prefer pass that doesn't have state, except for the user provided arguments.
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.
In that case, should we remove all edges from the sequence before sequencing?