Skip to content

Remove private method lookup in dpctl_capi #1597

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 19, 2024

Conversation

oleksandr-pavlyk
Copy link
Contributor

This PR removes private method dpctl_capi::lookup.

This removes one of static dpctl_capi instance from dpctl_capi definition. This leaves a single static instance created dynamically in get static method.

  • Have you provided a meaningful PR description?
  • Have you added a test, reproducer or referred to an issue with a reproducer?
  • Have you tested your changes locally for CPU and GPU devices?
  • Have you made sure that new changes do not introduce compiler warnings?
  • Have you checked performance impact of proposed changes?
  • If this PR is a work in progress, are you opening the PR as a draft?

This removes one of static dpctl_capi instance from dpctl_capi definition.
This leaves a single static instance created dynamically in get static method.
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Mar 19, 2024

Deleted rendered PR docs from intelpython.github.com/dpctl, latest should be updated shortly. 🤞

@coveralls
Copy link
Collaborator

Coverage Status

coverage: 87.832%. remained the same
when pulling 482bd55 on remove-extra-static-copy-of-dpctl-capi
into 116cb3b on master.

Copy link

Array API standard conformance tests for dpctl=0.17.0dev0=py310h15de555_136 ran successfully.
Passed: 906
Failed: 0
Skipped: 94

@oleksandr-pavlyk oleksandr-pavlyk merged commit f3caaa1 into master Mar 19, 2024
@oleksandr-pavlyk oleksandr-pavlyk deleted the remove-extra-static-copy-of-dpctl-capi branch March 19, 2024 18:15
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants