Follow up on #161891 move additions to stable shim and use version guards #168025
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
…ards [ghstack-poisoned]
🔗 Helpful Links🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/168025
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ⏳ No Failures, 4 PendingAs of commit 484f5cd with merge base 1c04a43 ( This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
mikaylagawarecki
added
topic: not user facing
Contributor
Attention! PyTorch one of the C-stable API file was changedYou MUST NOT change existing function declarations in this, as this header defines a stable C ABI. If you need to change the signature for a function, introduce a new v2 version of the function and modify code generation to target the new version of the function. Caused by: |
janeyx99
approved these changes
Nov 17, 2025
… version guards" Address #161891 (comment) [ghstack-poisoned]
This was referenced Nov 18, 2025
Collaborator
|
Starting merge as part of PR stack under #167962 |
pytorchmergebot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 18, 2025
This is tested by #167962 which ensures we get compilation errors when using functions that convert Device/HeaderOnlyArrayRef to StableIValue and target 2.9 Pull Request resolved: #167802 Approved by: https://github.com/janeyx99 ghstack dependencies: #168025
pytorchmergebot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 18, 2025
Tests are split into libtorch_agnostic_2_9_extension and libtorch_agnostic_2_10_extension depending on the minimum version they should compile+run in Pull Request resolved: #167803 Approved by: https://github.com/janeyx99 ghstack dependencies: #168025, #167802
pytorchmergebot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 18, 2025
Splits each torch library registration in the 2.10 folder into its own file -- I had a script that parsed kernel.cpp to do this but I felt like forcing this responsibility on the user might be less error prone Compiles each file targetting 2.9 and asserts that compilation fails. (There are 2 2.9 kernels we use as negative tests where compilation is expected to succeed) Pull Request resolved: #167962 Approved by: https://github.com/janeyx99 ghstack dependencies: #168025, #167802, #167803, #167804
jeffdaily
added a commit
to ROCm/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 18, 2025
Unclear which PR in the ghstack caused the ROCm failure. Stack was (oldest at bottom): - pytorch#167962 - pytorch#167804 - pytorch#167803 - pytorch#167802 - pytorch#168025
pytorchmergebot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 19, 2025
Unclear which PR in the ghstack caused the ROCm failure. Stack was (oldest at bottom): - #167962 - #167804 - #167803 - #167802 - #168025 Fixes the following test: PYTORCH_TEST_WITH_ROCM=1 python test/cpp_extensions/libtorch_agnostic_2_10_extension/test_version_compatibility.py FunctionVersionCompatibilityTest.test_mv_tensor_accessor_cuda_works_with_2_9 Pull Request resolved: #168087 Approved by: https://github.com/jeffdaily, https://github.com/janeyx99 Co-authored-by: Jeff Daily <jeff.daily@amd.com> Co-authored-by: Jane (Yuan) Xu <31798555+janeyx99@users.noreply.github.com>
This was referenced Nov 19, 2025
pytorchmergebot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 20, 2025
~This PR does change the semantics of the >> operator by using STD_TORCH_CHECK to throw the error instead of TORCH_CHECK. Jane (who is writing this message) thinks it is okay because it is the error case when an invalid MemoryFormat or Layout is getting passed into >>, so the UX benefits of TORCH_CHECK over STD_TORCH_CHECK there are not significant enough to warrant making a new copy of Layout and MemoryFormat's >> APIs.~ Never mind! We shouldn't change TORCH_CHECK to STD_TORCH_CHECK for core usage ever, cuz the traceback info and c10::Error is very much desired!! So the solution is to not migrate the >>s. I pushed new commits to the stack to remove the >> code, but for reference, 8a30179 has all the code that I ended up deleting. Pull Request resolved: #168034 Approved by: https://github.com/janeyx99 ghstack dependencies: #168025, #167802, #167803, #167804, #167962 Co-authored-by: Jane Xu <janeyx@meta.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Address #161891 (comment)
Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):