Skip to content
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

split up tests #1868

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

split up tests #1868

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

ExpandingMan
Copy link
Contributor

@ExpandingMan ExpandingMan commented Sep 20, 2024

This is a re-do of #1824 for post 0.13.

To reiterate, the goal here is to roughly group the tests by the functionality they are testing and separate them into a large number of files which should be possible to run entirely independently. Again the way I have grouped these tests may not always make a lot of sense, it seems likely they'll get shuffled around more in the future (or before this gets merged) but this seems like a decent start.

There is still a major issue that I've so far been unable to resolve: a setfault in arrays.jl, which I've seen before when trying to split up the tests. It sure looks to me like the fact that it segfaults is an enzyme bug, as I don't see any reason it should do that, especially merely as a result of being in a different file.

As of writing, everything else in here passes as expected for me (x86 linux).

sc = rand(Float32, 6)
bi = rand(Float32, 6)
#WARN: this is where there is a segfault that I can't figure out
#Enzyme.autodiff(Reverse, bc2_loss_function, Active, Duplicated(x, Enzyme.make_zero(x)),
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have explicitly confirmed that in isolation bc2_loss_fuction works fine on the provided arguments, but this autodiff segfaults. Becoming more confident this is an enzyme bug. Not sure what was preventing it from segfaulting before this PR.

@wsmoses
Copy link
Member

wsmoses commented Sep 20, 2024

open a mwe issue for each of these?

@ExpandingMan
Copy link
Contributor Author

#1869 and #1870

(the former is clearly a real bug, the latter is just confusing error messages and probably not a bug)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants