-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 689
[ExecuTorch] Proof-of-concept: use c10/macros in ExecuTorch #6665
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
Conversation
Step 0 for code sharing: can we use c10 Macros? This needs a guardrail to prevent breaking the ExecuTorch core requirements before we can ship it. What's our current guard against accidentally including streams/heap allocation/etc. in core at runtime? Differential Revision: [D65241695](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D65241695/) [ghstack-poisoned]
🔗 Helpful Links🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/pytorch/executorch/6665
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ❌ 30 New FailuresAs of commit 7115abe with merge base 09cf982 ( NEW FAILURES - The following jobs have failed:
This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
Step 0 for code sharing: can we use c10 Macros? This needs a guardrail to prevent breaking the ExecuTorch core requirements before we can ship it. What's our current guard against accidentally including streams/heap allocation/etc. in core at runtime? Differential Revision: [D65241695](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D65241695/) ghstack-source-id: 251930153 Pull Request resolved: #6665
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D65241695 |
Step 0 for code sharing: can we use c10 Macros? This needs a guardrail to prevent breaking the ExecuTorch core requirements before we can ship it. What's our current guard against accidentally including streams/heap allocation/etc. in core at runtime? Differential Revision: [D65241695](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D65241695/) [ghstack-poisoned]
Pull Request resolved: #6665 Step 0 for code sharing: can we use c10 Macros? This needs a guardrail to prevent breaking the ExecuTorch core requirements before we can ship it. What's our current guard against accidentally including streams/heap allocation/etc. in core at runtime? Differential Revision: [D65241695](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D65241695/) ghstack-source-id: 252102877
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D65241695 |
we'll focus on kernel code sharing for now. |
Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):
Step 0 for code sharing: can we use c10 Macros?
This needs a guardrail to prevent breaking the ExecuTorch core
requirements before we can ship it. What's our current guard against
accidentally including streams/heap allocation/etc. in core at runtime?
Differential Revision: D65241695