Fix sparse Subarray fill! #38021
Merged
Fix sparse Subarray fill! #38021
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
mbauman
reviewed
Oct 14, 2020
Co-authored-by: Matt Bauman <mbauman@juliacomputing.com>
vtjnash
reviewed
Oct 19, 2020
mbauman
reviewed
Oct 19, 2020
Co-authored-by: Matt Bauman <mbauman@juliacomputing.com>
|
By the way, does this supersede #24711? Not necessarily this PR here, but more like #37856? @KristofferC |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #38009.
This should actually improve performance in broadcasted scalar assignments to sparse matrices (
dest .= val). The functionality touched here hasn't been called since #26347, which had a missing<:and hided the function in dispatch, which was fixed in #37856, but revealed #38009. Also, #26347 added support forIntegers, whereas the original code was written only forI::AbstractVector{<:Integer}, which included indexing intoI. I haven't replaced the obviously scalar indexing calls by calls to the helper function, to allow for the detection of any flaws in the indexing logic (it's pretty involved, I must admit). You can index into a number, but only with index1. So, if there were scalar indexing calls with helper indices other than1, we should still see it, but tests seem to pass locally.