Skip to content

feat[next][dace]: Use SDFG library node for lowering of broadcast expressions #2386

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Draft
edopao wants to merge 19 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

feat[next][dace]: Use SDFG library node for lowering of broadcast expressions #2386

edopao wants to merge 19 commits into from

Conversation

@edopao
Copy link
Contributor

@edopao edopao commented Nov 11, 2025

No description provided.

philip-paul-mueller
philip-paul-mueller reviewed Nov 11, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@philip-paul-mueller philip-paul-mueller left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There are some refinements needed.

src/gt4py/next/program_processors/runners/dace/sdfg_library_nodes.py Outdated


@dace_library.node
class Fill(dace_nodes.LibraryNode):
Copy link
Contributor

@philip-paul-mueller philip-paul-mueller Nov 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would add some more semantic, i.e. an input connector, that collects the value that should be broadcasted and an output connector for the output.

I am also wondering if it would make sense to have two different library nodes.
One where the value that is broadcast is a literal, like 0.0 and one, which is probably the current one, where the value is read from another data descriptor (might be hard to integrate into the lowering).

havogt
havogt reviewed Nov 11, 2025
View reviewed changes
@philip-paul-mueller
Copy link
Contributor

philip-paul-mueller commented Nov 12, 2025

@edopao
I am not sure if we should add the transformations we need already in this PR or in a later one.
If we put it in a later one, we should patch the optimizer to expand the node right at the beginning, this way we preserve the current behaviour and performance.

@edopao
Copy link
Contributor Author

edopao commented Nov 24, 2025

cscs-ci run default

@edopao
Copy link
Contributor Author

edopao commented Nov 24, 2025

cscs-ci run default

@edopao
Copy link
Contributor Author

edopao commented Nov 24, 2025

cscs-ci run default

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@havogt havogt havogt left review comments

@philip-paul-mueller philip-paul-mueller philip-paul-mueller left review comments

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@edopao @philip-paul-mueller @havogt