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

Inconsistent and incorrect use of operator descriptor in onnx parsing #2952

Closed
nives-vukovic opened this issue Apr 4, 2024 · 1 comment
Closed
Assignees

Comments

@nives-vukovic
Copy link
Collaborator

There are onnx parse() functions which use opd.op_name inside MIGRAPHX_THROW macro, although this operator descriptor field is not initialized.

List of such files:

  • src/onnx/parse_instancenorm.cpp
  • src/onnx/parse_randomnormal_ops.cpp
  • src/onnx/parse_randomuniform_ops.cpp
  • src/onnx/parse_resize.cpp

In src/onnx/parse_qlinearpooling.cpp parse() function opd.onnx_name is used inside MIGRAPHX_THROW macros, which is not consistent with other prints (However, could be a better solution as onnx_name is more precise and op_name sometimes does not point out precisely which onnx operator causes an error).

There are onnx parse() functions which use opd.op_name inside tune_axis function, although this operator descriptor field is not initialized.

List of such files:

  • src/onnx/parse_dequantizelinear.cpp
  • src/onnx/parse_gather_elements.cpp
  • src/onnx/parse_onehot.cpp
  • src/onnx/parse_quantizelinear.cpp
  • src/onnx/parse_split.cpp
  • src/onnx/parse_unique.cpp
@sohaibnd
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @nives-vukovic, thanks for pointing this out. opd.op_name has been replaced with opd.onnx_name inside MIGRAPHX_THROW macros (and tune_axis) since onnx_name is more descriptive as you've mentioned already. See the following PR: #3532

I am going to close this issue as it is resolved. If you come across any other problems, feel free to create another issue.

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

No branches or pull requests

5 participants