[triton-raise-block-ptr]: Increase test coverage #3315
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Tiotto, Ettore <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tiotto, Ettore <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tiotto, Ettore <[email protected]>
| %7 = tt.load %6, %5, %cst : tensor<4x!tt.ptr<f32>> | ||
| // TODO: replace with the following line when masked loads are supported. | ||
| // %7 = tt.load %6, %5, %cst : tensor<4x!tt.ptr<f32>> | ||
| %7 = tt.load %6 : tensor<4x!tt.ptr<f32>> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure to understand what is this point of removing the mask here.
As I understand it, the purpose of the test is to test the pass's ability to handle load/store with masks. So, if we remove the mask because masks are not handled yet, not sure it makes sense to keep the test.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So we have 2 choices. XFAIL the test or keep it as it is now and change it later when/if we have masked loads support. I am open to either, what do you prefer?
| // CHECK-DAG: [[VAR_1_:%.+]] = tt.make_range {end = 1280 : i32, start = 1024 : i32} : tensor<256xi32> | ||
| // CHECK: [[VAR_2_:%.+]] = tt.addptr [[VAR_0_]], [[VAR_1_]] : tensor<256x!tt.ptr<bf16>>, tensor<256xi32> | ||
| // CHECK: [[VAR_3_:%.+]] = scf.for [[VAR_arg1_:%.+]] = {{.*}} iter_args([[VAR_arg2_:%.+]] = [[VAR_2_]]) -> (tensor<256x!tt.ptr<bf16>>) { | ||
| // CHECK-NOT: tt.make_tensor_ptr |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does that mean that we do not plan to support case when we have an expandDimOp in the loop soon-ish?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes correct. I'd like to see how often this patter arises in practice. If it doesn't happen often then we can keep this as a permanent limitation.
No description provided.