Skip to content
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

Fixing SDFGState._read_and_write_sets() #1747

Merged

Conversation

philip-paul-mueller
Copy link
Collaborator

Removed some asserts that were to strict from SDFGState._read_and_write_sets().

If a subset is None the function assumes that corresponding array is fully accessed.
Before, there was an assert that ensured that this assumption is true.
However, the implementation also assumed that this could be verified, either because the same symbols were used or the size was known.

But this if not necessarily the case, if the two involved arrays uses different symbols, that however, are always the same.
The other reason was that before the size was estimated using total_size, which has a well defined meaning for an Array but in case of a View its meaning is not fully clear.

For these reasons the asserts was removed.

…ite_sets()`.

If a subset is `None` the function assumes that corresponding array is fully accessed.
Before, there was an `assert` that ensured that this assumption is true.
However, the implementation also assumed that this could be verified, either because the same symbols were used or the size was known.

But this if not necessarily the case, if the two involved arrays uses different symbols, that however, are always the same.
The other reason was that before the size was estimated using `total_size`, which has a well defined meaning for an `Array` but in case of a `View` its meaning is not fully clear.

For these reasons the asserts was removed.
@philip-paul-mueller philip-paul-mueller marked this pull request as ready for review November 11, 2024 10:34
philip-paul-mueller added a commit to philip-paul-mueller/dace that referenced this pull request Nov 11, 2024
However, to work we need spcl#1747.
@tbennun tbennun added this pull request to the merge queue Nov 11, 2024
Merged via the queue into spcl:main with commit 02c9c37 Nov 11, 2024
10 checks passed
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.

2 participants