[mlir][OpenMP] Fix assert in processing of dist_schedule #170269
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
When llvm#152736 was initially merged, the assert that checks for the chunksize when applying a static-chunked schedule was incorrect. While it would not have changed the behaviour of the assert, the string attached to it would have been emitted in cases where it was simplified.
|
✅ With the latest revision this PR passed the C/C++ code formatter. |
tblah
approved these changes
Dec 2, 2025
kcloudy0717
pushed a commit
to kcloudy0717/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 4, 2025
When llvm#152736 was initially merged, the assert that checks for the chunksize when applying a static-chunked schedule was incorrect. While it would not have changed the behaviour of the assert, the string attached to it would have been emitted in cases where it was simplified. This was raised here: llvm#152736 (comment) Testing for this was explored, but this assert is a last chance failure point that should never be reached as applyWorkshareLoop decides the `EffectiveScheduleType` based on the existence of `ChunkSize` or `DistScheduleChunkSize`, so this will only trigger if there are issues with that conversion, and UnitTesting already exists for `applyWorkshareLoop`
honeygoyal
pushed a commit
to honeygoyal/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 9, 2025
When llvm#152736 was initially merged, the assert that checks for the chunksize when applying a static-chunked schedule was incorrect. While it would not have changed the behaviour of the assert, the string attached to it would have been emitted in cases where it was simplified. This was raised here: llvm#152736 (comment) Testing for this was explored, but this assert is a last chance failure point that should never be reached as applyWorkshareLoop decides the `EffectiveScheduleType` based on the existence of `ChunkSize` or `DistScheduleChunkSize`, so this will only trigger if there are issues with that conversion, and UnitTesting already exists for `applyWorkshareLoop`
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
When #152736 was initially merged, the assert that checks for the chunksize when applying a static-chunked schedule was incorrect. While it would not have changed the behaviour of the assert, the string attached to it would have been emitted in cases where it was simplified.
This was raised here: #152736 (comment)
Testing for this was explored, but this assert is a last chance failure point that should never be reached as applyWorkshareLoop decides the
EffectiveScheduleTypebased on the existence ofChunkSizeorDistScheduleChunkSize, so this will only trigger if there are issues with that conversion, and UnitTesting already exists forapplyWorkshareLoop