Repository navigation
mlir-backend: consumer fusion in-place behavior, c target parallelization fix - #159
Merged
liamsemeria merged 2 commits intoOct 22, 2026
Conversation
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
guillon
approved these changes
Oct 22, 2026
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Motivation
Previously in consumer fusion, a new buffer was created for the conv2d/matmul, instead of the consumer sharing the buffer, and consumer fusion didn't account for parallelized loops.
The c target never ran in parallel since it didnt have the right flag set.
Description
This is mostly just implementing the new feature and fixes that came from the xtc-tools update.
I added a check so that the fopenmp flag is only added when it compiles correctly, if it doesnt then the program just runs sequentially like before. If there is no omp in the c translation the flag does nothing so it's ok to keep.
Discussion
Should there be a logger debug or warning when the fopenmp flag doesn't work or is it ok to keep it like this?
TODO: