tqchen commented on code in PR #20011:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/20011#discussion_r3591650146
##########
src/relax/analysis/well_formed.cc:
##########
@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ class WellFormedChecker : public relax::ExprVisitor, public
relax::TypeVisitor {
void VisitExpr(const Expr& expr) final {
if (!expr.as<OpNode>() && expr->ty.IsMissing()) {
Review Comment:
This diff only changes the diagnostic wording ("is nullptr" -> "is
missing"); the `!expr.as<OpNode>() && expr->ty.IsMissing()` guard is
pre-existing and unchanged. The concern is also not applicable here:
`WellFormedChecker::VisitExpr` is only ever reached with defined relax
expressions (an undefined `Expr` would already fault at `expr->ty` regardless
of this guard, and the visitor never enqueues one). Adding an `expr.defined()`
check would re-verify an IR invariant this cleanup pass is specifically
removing, so no code change is made.
##########
tests/python/relax/test_op_gradient_numeric.py:
##########
@@ -36,7 +36,6 @@ def relax_check_gradients(
op_func: Callable,
inputs_numpy: list[np.array],
Review Comment:
Applied: the parameter annotation is now `list[np.ndarray]`.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
