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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Integrate llvm 1_20_2025 #19740
Integrate llvm 1_20_2025 #19740
Changes from all commits
737acd6
a291ccd
88c7a06
d07a2ec
2eee230
67a4815
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.
What happened here?
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, that maxnumf is not present in IR, overall a lot of reduction codegen seems changed. I wonder if its something with valuebound interface like this commit
llvm/llvm-project#122804
I will flag this on discord.
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.
Actually I think whats happening here can be explained by this commit
llvm/llvm-project#118952
I believe that we were using -INF in softmax decompostion when we wanted NAN, with NAN, I think there is some simplification as you would simply pick the other argument hence needing one less maxnumf after folding..
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.
lets check what happens to correctness with this... Might need to revert it. I missed it, but I dont think using NAN make sense. Should be -INF.
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 CI is not finding any errors, I believe there are softmax dispactches checked into the regression tests so I think this works. I think there is some discussion on this here
llvm/llvm-project#114595
NaN is safe with maxnumf but should we have used maximumf and kept using -INF would be something to decide. Also should maxnumf fold the same for -INF is also something to think over.