-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 289
refactor(gpu): match_value to backend #2989
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.
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
18d8f80 to
3581826
Compare
3581826 to
8f80d4f
Compare
8f80d4f to
f1e19de
Compare
f1e19de to
2a72a73
Compare
2a72a73 to
6609335
Compare
agnesLeroy
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks a lot for this PR @enzodimaria! You'll see I have some comments: one of them is that it'll be better performance wise to operate on possible values in parallel. You could:
- take into account other review comments
- do the change for compute_equality_selectors in a separate commit and ask for my review again, so we go step by step with it.
6609335 to
aee97f8
Compare
5b370e5 to
45b6af2
Compare
8027038 to
8c12b84
Compare
agnesLeroy
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me, we need to check compute-sanitizer & also be sure to have this function tested in long run tests 🙂
8c12b84 to
590fb1f
Compare
590fb1f to
b0aa4e2
Compare
4cd1cbe to
a09cfa6
Compare
0ecef17 to
2dec9e9
Compare
2dec9e9 to
65d610f
Compare
f27bdb6 to
d3a06d1
Compare
d3a06d1 to
afb9475
Compare
closes: please link all relevant issues
PR content/description
Check-list: