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

Add portable ELU implementation + test #9520

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

swolchok
Copy link
Contributor

@swolchok swolchok commented Mar 22, 2025

No description provided.

[ghstack-poisoned]
@swolchok
Copy link
Contributor Author

swolchok commented Mar 22, 2025

Copy link

pytorch-bot bot commented Mar 22, 2025

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/pytorch/executorch/9520

Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed.

❌ 2 New Failures, 1 Unrelated Failure

As of commit aafeb54 with merge base f13aeff (image):

NEW FAILURES - The following jobs have failed:

BROKEN TRUNK - The following job failed but were present on the merge base:

👉 Rebase onto the `viable/strict` branch to avoid these failures

This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes.

@facebook-github-bot facebook-github-bot added the CLA Signed This label is managed by the Facebook bot. Authors need to sign the CLA before a PR can be reviewed. label Mar 22, 2025
@swolchok swolchok requested a review from kimishpatel March 22, 2025 00:30
@swolchok swolchok added the release notes: ops & kernels Changes to the opset and any new / changed kernel implementations label Mar 22, 2025
@kimishpatel
Copy link
Contributor

did we actually decide to make it a portable op @larryliu0820? If we just want to control its decomp behavior we have other ways to do it as well, right?

@swolchok
Copy link
Contributor Author

did we actually decide to make it a portable op @larryliu0820? If we just want to control its decomp behavior we have other ways to do it as well, right?

Do we not need portable op implementations for all core ATen ops?

@kimishpatel
Copy link
Contributor

did we actually decide to make it a portable op @larryliu0820? If we just want to control its decomp behavior we have other ways to do it as well, right?

Do we not need portable op implementations for all core ATen ops?

Sorry I should have been more clear. I was actually asking "did we actually decide to it a core aten op?". If so yes

@swolchok
Copy link
Contributor Author

core aten op

@kimishpatel pytorch/pytorch#149684

[ghstack-poisoned]
[ghstack-poisoned]
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CLA Signed This label is managed by the Facebook bot. Authors need to sign the CLA before a PR can be reviewed. release notes: ops & kernels Changes to the opset and any new / changed kernel implementations
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants