-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 564
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
Tacho : compile warnings on Mi300 #13482
Changes from 1 commit
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -1939,7 +1939,7 @@ class NumericToolsLevelSet : public NumericToolsBase<ValueType, DeviceType> { | |
s0.rowptrU, s0.colindU, s0.nzvalsU, | ||
rocsparse_indextype_i32, rocsparse_indextype_i32, rocsparse_index_base_zero, rocsparse_compute_type); | ||
// workspace | ||
#if ROCM_VERSION >= 50400 | ||
#if (ROCM_VERSION >= 50400 && ROCM_VERSION < 60000) | ||
rocsparse_spmv_ex | ||
#else | ||
rocsparse_spmv | ||
|
@@ -1958,7 +1958,11 @@ class NumericToolsLevelSet : public NumericToolsBase<ValueType, DeviceType> { | |
#if ROCM_VERSION >= 50400 | ||
// preprocess | ||
buffer_size_U = buffer_U.extent(0); | ||
#if (ROCM_VERSION >= 60000) | ||
rocsparse_spmv | ||
#else | ||
rocsparse_spmv_ex | ||
#endif | ||
(rocsparseHandle, rocsparse_operation_none, | ||
&alpha, s0.descrU, vecX, &beta, vecY, | ||
rocsparse_compute_type, rocsparse_spmv_alg_default, | ||
|
@@ -1971,7 +1975,7 @@ class NumericToolsLevelSet : public NumericToolsBase<ValueType, DeviceType> { | |
s0.rowptrL, s0.colindL, s0.nzvalsL, | ||
rocsparse_indextype_i32, rocsparse_indextype_i32, rocsparse_index_base_zero, rocsparse_compute_type); | ||
// workspace | ||
#if ROCM_VERSION >= 50400 | ||
#if (ROCM_VERSION >= 50400 && ROCM_VERSION < 60000) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Looks like this could be made more consistent with similar changes by swapping the order of the check and function api, e.g. change L1978-1981 to be:
|
||
rocsparse_spmv_ex | ||
#else | ||
rocsparse_spmv | ||
|
@@ -1990,7 +1994,11 @@ class NumericToolsLevelSet : public NumericToolsBase<ValueType, DeviceType> { | |
#if ROCM_VERSION >= 50400 | ||
// preprocess | ||
buffer_size_L = buffer_L.extent(0); | ||
#if (ROCM_VERSION >= 60000) | ||
rocsparse_spmv | ||
#else | ||
rocsparse_spmv_ex | ||
#endif | ||
(rocsparseHandle, rocsparse_operation_none, | ||
&alpha, s0.descrL, vecX, &beta, vecY, | ||
rocsparse_compute_type, rocsparse_spmv_alg_default, | ||
|
@@ -2003,7 +2011,7 @@ class NumericToolsLevelSet : public NumericToolsBase<ValueType, DeviceType> { | |
s0.rowptrU, s0.colindU, s0.nzvalsU, | ||
rocsparse_indextype_i32, rocsparse_indextype_i32, rocsparse_index_base_zero, rocsparse_compute_type); | ||
// workspace (transpose) | ||
#if ROCM_VERSION >= 50400 | ||
#if (ROCM_VERSION >= 50400 && ROCM_VERSION < 60000) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Looks like this could be made more consistent with similar changes by swapping the order of the check and function api, e.g. change L2014-2017 to be:
|
||
rocsparse_spmv_ex | ||
#else | ||
rocsparse_spmv | ||
|
@@ -2022,7 +2030,11 @@ class NumericToolsLevelSet : public NumericToolsBase<ValueType, DeviceType> { | |
#if ROCM_VERSION >= 50400 | ||
// preprocess | ||
buffer_size_L = buffer_L.extent(0); | ||
#if (ROCM_VERSION >= 60000) | ||
rocsparse_spmv | ||
#else | ||
rocsparse_spmv_ex | ||
#endif | ||
(rocsparseHandle, rocsparse_operation_transpose, | ||
&alpha, s0.descrL, vecX, &beta, vecY, | ||
rocsparse_compute_type, rocsparse_spmv_alg_default, | ||
|
@@ -2491,7 +2503,7 @@ class NumericToolsLevelSet : public NumericToolsBase<ValueType, DeviceType> { | |
auto vecY = ((nlvls-1-lvl)%2 == 0 ? vecW : vecL); | ||
if (s0.spmv_explicit_transpose) { | ||
status = | ||
#if ROCM_VERSION >= 50400 | ||
#if (ROCM_VERSION >= 50400 && ROCM_VERSION < 60000) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Looks like this could be made more consistent with similar changes by swapping the order of the check and function api, e.g. change to:
|
||
rocsparse_spmv_ex | ||
#else | ||
rocsparse_spmv | ||
|
@@ -2505,7 +2517,7 @@ class NumericToolsLevelSet : public NumericToolsBase<ValueType, DeviceType> { | |
&buffer_size_L, (void*)buffer_L.data()); | ||
} else { | ||
status = | ||
#if ROCM_VERSION >= 50400 | ||
#if (ROCM_VERSION >= 50400 && ROCM_VERSION < 60000) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Looks like this could be made more consistent with similar changes by swapping the order of the check and function api, e.g. change to:
|
||
rocsparse_spmv_ex | ||
#else | ||
rocsparse_spmv | ||
|
@@ -2827,7 +2839,7 @@ class NumericToolsLevelSet : public NumericToolsBase<ValueType, DeviceType> { | |
auto vecX = (lvl%2 == 0 ? vecU : vecW); | ||
auto vecY = (lvl%2 == 0 ? vecW : vecU); | ||
status = | ||
#if ROCM_VERSION >= 50400 | ||
#if (ROCM_VERSION >= 50400 && ROCM_VERSION < 60000) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Looks like this could be made more consistent with similar changes by swapping the order of the check and function api, e.g. change to:
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Thank you, @ndellingwood !! Yea, my checks are ugly. I was trying to reduce the code lines.. With |
||
rocsparse_spmv_ex | ||
#else | ||
rocsparse_spmv | ||
|
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 like this could be made more consistent with similar changes by swapping the order of the check and function api, e.g. change L1942-1945 to be: