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

[Relay][AutoTVM] Bug Fix for ARM CPUs. Lower strict assumption. #5063

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 13, 2020
Merged

[Relay][AutoTVM] Bug Fix for ARM CPUs. Lower strict assumption. #5063

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 13, 2020

Conversation

bernhardklein
Copy link
Contributor

Hello together,
since last changes I had a issue compiling stuff for my ARM CPUs( Rasberry Pi 3b+). I got the error message that stride_h is not known. Seems understandable in the code, so I guess that the required assumption here is to strict. It seems to work well with removed stride assumption. However, the original authors of this code can you take a look and check if I am right.
Thanks, Bernhard

@bernhardklein
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @icemelon9 @kevinthesun

@icemelon icemelon merged commit d7a7483 into apache:master Mar 13, 2020
@icemelon
Copy link
Member

Thanks @bernhardklein. This is now merged.

@FrozenGene
Copy link
Member

I think the fix is not correct. Winograd doesn't support stride > 1. The issue here is we don't have code stride_h, stride_w = strides and just have strides = attrs.get_int_tuple("strides"). Please fix it.

@bernhardklein
Copy link
Contributor Author

@FrozenGene Thank you for your response. I think the assumption a view lines obove assert strides == (1, 1), "Do not support strides now" already ensures that stride is 1. A second check should be unnecessary. Correct me if I'm wrong.

@FrozenGene
Copy link
Member

@FrozenGene Thank you for your response. I think the assumption a view lines obove assert strides == (1, 1), "Do not support strides now" already ensures that stride is 1. A second check should be unnecessary. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, you are correct! I didn't realize we assert here. Thanks for pointing it out.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants