Unstrictify expr in the bounds inference in a single pass#8687
Closed
Unstrictify expr in the bounds inference in a single pass#8687
Conversation
Member
|
It bothers me that I don't understand why the existing behavior is exponential. I'm going to investigate more today |
Member
|
Ok I'm glad I investigated. This is not just a strict float problem - it's a problem with all pure intrinsics that get lowered in bounds inference, e.g. widening_add. The issue is that this line evaluates the bounds of the args: https://github.com/halide/Halide/blob/main/src/Bounds.cpp#L1211 But then later the intrinsic may get lowered into another form and then recursively reanalyzed, computing the bounds of the args again. If many pure intrinsics are nested, this has exponential complexity because you double the work at each call node. |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This is to address #8686.
There is a reproducer in a bug report, but I'm not sure what would be a good way to add it? just a correctness test and if it hangs it hangs?