Reason I want to add canonicalize to stablehlo #106
Closed
linuxlonelyeagle
started this conversation in
stablehlo
Replies: 2 comments
|
Thanks for sharing! I've posted an RFC to OpenXLA Discuss which encompasses this proposal. This isn't the first instance I've seen of wanting some transformations on StableHLO for non-MHLO-based pathways, and I think moving some of these transformations / canonicalizations to StableHLO actually makes for a cleaner overall picture. [RFC] Adding StableHLO transformations for CHLO, Shape, Canonicalizations Let's move all discussion to that email chain as posts over there tend to have greater visibility. |
0 replies
|
To provide an update: General agreement on openxla-discuss posting. PRs have been reviewed and merged in openxla/stablehlo#1984 |
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There are stablehlo backend in torch-mlir, but they're not actually enabled right now.You can see this PR.We desperately want to add stablehlo's refbackend to torch-mlir.It doesn't look like there is an implementation of stablehlo.dynamic_reshape (with static shape) to linalg right now.So I think it can be added,or add canonicalize and it's dynamic_reshape to reshape and then to linalg.
All reactions