-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 730
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
[SYCL][Joint Matrix Tests] Add fill/store/apply tests for 16x16x16, 32x64x16 #12629
Merged
steffenlarsen
merged 5 commits into
intel:sycl
from
YuriPlyakhin:add_big_comp_fill_store_test
Mar 22, 2024
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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 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 was deleted.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file contains 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 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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -14,5 +14,4 @@ | |
// RUN: %{run} %t.out | ||
|
||
#include "common.hpp" | ||
|
||
#include "element_wise_all_ops_impl.hpp" |
This file contains 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 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.
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.
This function got very complicated instead of just adding a new one like I suggested: matrix_multiply_apply_ref as these are two different things.
To avoid code duplication, matrix_multiply_apply_ref would call matrix_multiply_ref
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.
If matrix_multiply_apply_ref would call matrix_mulitply_ref, then multiplication and apply would not be fused, right? Then what is the point of adding matrix_multiply_apply_ref? Why not just use matrix_multiply_ref and then matrix_apply_ref, as I initially did?
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 thought you did not want to fuse. In this case the point is to use modularity.
A new function with fusion would be perfect. We could outline the duplicated code in an another function.
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.
Well, I did not want to create a new fused version, as I thought that would be too much just for one test case. But then I figured I can make a fused version out of the existing multiply function with just a few simple changes. So I decided to produce a fused version without creating more entities. Yes, function naming is not ideal now, but overall, I don't consider it to be very complicated and it allows both multiplication and apply in a fused way, while if test requires only multiplication, call can be kept simple, as apply-related parameters are optional.