Delete some functions already defined in Base#1325
Closed
JamesWrigley wants to merge 1 commit intoJuliaArrays:masterfrom
Closed
Delete some functions already defined in Base#1325JamesWrigley wants to merge 1 commit intoJuliaArrays:masterfrom
JamesWrigley wants to merge 1 commit intoJuliaArrays:masterfrom
Conversation
This fixes some invalidations.
Author
|
Closing because the inference failures are a bit too tricky for me to debug right now. |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This fixes some invalidations. On Julia 1.12 the number of invalidations go down from 1628 to 1498. As a dependency of CUDA.jl and in combination with JuliaData/SentinelArrays.jl#119 the number of invalidations from loading CUDA go from 11175 to 10432.
One potentially dodgy change is removing the
getindex()method, but I benchmarked it against the default one in Base and got the same results (~3 ns). When running the tests I also found that one of the@test_brokentests was passing so I fixed that too, but it's an allocation test so it may just be a 1.12 thing.