[ONNX] use checked_type instead of type_annotation #7522
Merged
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
Contributor
|
I think its fine to skip the test in this case, it makes much more sense to use |
Lokiiiiii
pushed a commit
to Lokiiiiii/tvm
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 2, 2021
trevor-m
pushed a commit
to neo-ai/tvm
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 2, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
@jwfromm I recently ran into an error where the W input to an LSTM was not a variable, so this type_annotation call failed, so I switched it to the more generic checked_type. Updating the test to hit this case is complicated, do you want to see a regression test for this?