Add support for _unsafe_index_put #1314
Conversation
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| @@ -863,6 +863,14 @@ | |||
| matcher=lambda sample: not (sample.args[0][0].dtype == torch.int64), | |||
| reason="this Aten overload only supports tensor(int) as indices", | |||
| ) | |||
| TorchLibOpInfo( | |||
Check failure
Code scanning / CodeQL
Syntax error
| @@ -863,6 +863,14 @@ def _where_input_wrangler( | |||
| matcher=lambda sample: not (sample.args[0][0].dtype == torch.int64), | |||
| reason="this Aten overload only supports tensor(int) as indices", | |||
| ) | |||
| TorchLibOpInfo( | |||
| "_unsafe_index_put", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since it looks like it is the same as index_put, we can actually make it the same function.
If for any reason we believe they could behave differently or if we want to safeguard the implementation, I would create test cases in extra_opinfo.py to run it against torch.ops.aten._unsafe_index_put (Looks like _unsafe_index_put does not exist in https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/blob/main/torch/testing/_internal/common_methods_invocations.py so we may need to create our own test cases)
|
Curious what is unsafe about this op itself? |
Co-authored-by: Justin Chu <[email protected]>
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1314 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 78.68% 62.08% -16.61%
===========================================
Files 119 117 -2
Lines 15762 14922 -840
Branches 2486 2372 -114
===========================================
- Hits 12403 9264 -3139
- Misses 2950 5318 +2368
+ Partials 409 340 -69 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
Dropped for #1315. |
No description provided.