Skip to content

Remove confusing torch::jit::RegisterOperators for custom ops #28229

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

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

smessmer
Copy link
Contributor

@smessmer smessmer commented Oct 17, 2019

Stack from ghstack:

We have torch::RegisterOperators for custom ops. torch::jit::RegisterOperators had a dual state of being able to register custom ops if called one way and being able to register pure JIT ops if called another way.
This is confusing because you end up in different operator libraries depending on which API exactly you're using.

This PR removes the ability for torch::jit::RegisterOperators to register custom ops and forces people to use the new torch::RegisterOperators.

This was already deprecated before but we now remove it.

Differential Revision: D17981895

We have `torch::RegisterOperators` for custom ops. `torch::jit::RegisterOperators` had a dual state of being able to register custom ops if called one way and being able to register pure JIT ops if called another way.
This is confusing because you end up in different operator libraries depending on which API exactly you're using.

This PR removes the ability for torch::jit::RegisterOperators to register custom ops and forces people to use the new torch::RegisterOperators.

This was already deprecated before but we now remove it.

Differential Revision: [D17981895](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D17981895/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
@smessmer smessmer requested a review from apaszke as a code owner October 17, 2019 16:45
@facebook-github-bot facebook-github-bot added the oncall: jit Add this issue/PR to JIT oncall triage queue label Oct 17, 2019
smessmer added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 17, 2019
We have `torch::RegisterOperators` for custom ops. `torch::jit::RegisterOperators` had a dual state of being able to register custom ops if called one way and being able to register pure JIT ops if called another way.
This is confusing because you end up in different operator libraries depending on which API exactly you're using.

This PR removes the ability for torch::jit::RegisterOperators to register custom ops and forces people to use the new torch::RegisterOperators.

This was already deprecated before but we now remove it.

Differential Revision: [D17981895](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D17981895/)

ghstack-source-id: 92106839
Pull Request resolved: #28229
Copy link
Contributor

@bddppq bddppq left a comment

…ops"

We have `torch::RegisterOperators` for custom ops. `torch::jit::RegisterOperators` had a dual state of being able to register custom ops if called one way and being able to register pure JIT ops if called another way.
This is confusing because you end up in different operator libraries depending on which API exactly you're using.

This PR removes the ability for torch::jit::RegisterOperators to register custom ops and forces people to use the new torch::RegisterOperators.

This was already deprecated before but we now remove it.

Differential Revision: [D17981895](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D17981895/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
…ops"

We have `torch::RegisterOperators` for custom ops. `torch::jit::RegisterOperators` had a dual state of being able to register custom ops if called one way and being able to register pure JIT ops if called another way.
This is confusing because you end up in different operator libraries depending on which API exactly you're using.

This PR removes the ability for torch::jit::RegisterOperators to register custom ops and forces people to use the new torch::RegisterOperators.

This was already deprecated before but we now remove it.

Differential Revision: [D17981895](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D17981895/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
smessmer added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 17, 2019
Pull Request resolved: #28229

We have `torch::RegisterOperators` for custom ops. `torch::jit::RegisterOperators` had a dual state of being able to register custom ops if called one way and being able to register pure JIT ops if called another way.
This is confusing because you end up in different operator libraries depending on which API exactly you're using.

This PR removes the ability for torch::jit::RegisterOperators to register custom ops and forces people to use the new torch::RegisterOperators.

This was already deprecated before but we now remove it.
ghstack-source-id: 92137305

Differential Revision: [D17981895](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D17981895/)
@smessmer smessmer requested a review from bddppq October 17, 2019 21:45
@bddppq bddppq deleted the gh/smessmer/92/head branch October 18, 2019 17:50
@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request has been merged in 2432986.

thiagocrepaldi pushed a commit to thiagocrepaldi/pytorch that referenced this pull request Feb 4, 2020
…h#28229)

Summary:
Pull Request resolved: pytorch#28229

We have `torch::RegisterOperators` for custom ops. `torch::jit::RegisterOperators` had a dual state of being able to register custom ops if called one way and being able to register pure JIT ops if called another way.
This is confusing because you end up in different operator libraries depending on which API exactly you're using.

This PR removes the ability for torch::jit::RegisterOperators to register custom ops and forces people to use the new torch::RegisterOperators.

This was already deprecated before but we now remove it.
ghstack-source-id: 92137305

Test Plan: unit tests

Differential Revision: D17981895

fbshipit-source-id: 0af267dfdc3c6a2736740091cf841bac40deff40
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Merged oncall: jit Add this issue/PR to JIT oncall triage queue
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants