Repository navigation
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3870 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 29.88% 29.83% -0.05%
==========================================
Files 249 249
Lines 55024 54840 -184
==========================================
- Hits 16445 16364 -81
+ Misses 38579 38476 -103 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
mofeing
left a comment
mofeing
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i think we want to enforce this always and make it non-optional.
also, not all jit_calls require tokens (e.g. MPI_Comm_rank is "pure") so i would prefer marking it per-op.
| if (jitCall.getFnAttr().getLeafReference().getValue().starts_with( | ||
| "enzymexla_jitwrap_")) | ||
| jitCalls.push_back(jitCall); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
isn't this fragile because other unrelated jit_calls might also use the same naming convention?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes a bit janky, i will use an attribute just within this pass like (enzymexla.comm_jit_ordered)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this will also fix your other comment since we will just not attach the attribute to that custom call that need not to be ordered.
No description provided.