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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is correct (and faster, yay!) but still does 2 shared_ptr operations (argument.type() and TypeTensor::get() both return shared_ptr which has to be destructed).
argument.type()->kind() == TensorType::kind()
would eliminate 1 shared_ptr creation. Modifying argument.type() to return aconst TypePtr&
would eliminate the other. Not sure if they will speed things up further, but worth checking.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I thought about checking only the type kind, but wasn't sure it would correctly work in a theoretical case where argument type would have, say, shapes specialized. I.e. if the graph would look like:
In that case, IIUC,
argument.type()->kind()
would equalTensorType::kind()
, butargument.type()
would not be equalTensorType::get()
.As for your second suggestion, let me try that. FWIW, I also tried replacing signature of
Type::isSubtypeOfExt
to use a reference for the first argument, but I didn't notice improved performance from that.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Submitted #48061 for that, PTAL @zdevito!