Summary:
Relate to https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/issues/50483.
Everything except ONNX, detectron and release notes tests are moved to use common_utils.run_tests() to ensure CI reports XML correctly.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/50923
Reviewed By: samestep
Differential Revision: D26027621
Pulled By: walterddr
fbshipit-source-id: b04c03f10d1fe96181b720c4c3868e86e4c6281a
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/26927
When we build a "normal" copy of PyTorch, we internally build a copy
of libtorch. If we want to test libtorch: we have a choice:
test against the regular PyTorch build, or test against the libtorch
only build. All of our libtorch tests require Python-side PyTorch
to run. So it makes more sense to test the regular PyTorch build.
There is probably still utility in making sure that it is still
possible to build libtorch only, but in that case we should endeavour
to run tests that ONLY require libtorch build, and not Python side
stuff.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
Test Plan: Imported from OSS
Differential Revision: D17695384
Pulled By: ezyang
fbshipit-source-id: 02522a8be0f5944f2b6255a8f1281e53ce2dcc6f
Summary:
I have some test code in there as well, along with a script "test_libtorch" to run it. You'll need to modify `test_libtorch` to point to where you have `pytorch` built. I currently require that `pybind11` is included as a subdirectory of the test, but added it to the `.gitignore` to make this reviewable.
Currently, something like this works:
```cpp
struct Foo {
int x, y;
Foo(): x(2), y(5){}
Foo(int x_, int y_) : x(x_), y(y_) {}
void display() {
cout<<"x: "<<x<<' '<<"y: "<<y<<endl;
}
int64_t add(int64_t z) {
return (x+y)*z;
}
};
static auto test = torch::jit::class_<Foo>("Foo")
.def(torch::jit::init<int64_t, int64_t>())
.def("display", &Foo::display)
.def("add", &Foo::add)
.def("combine", &Foo::combine);
```
with
```py
torch.jit.script
def f(x):
val = torch._C.Foo(5, 3)
val.display()
print(val.add(3))
```
results in
```
x: 5 y: 3
24
```
Current issues:
- [x] The python class created by torchscript doesn't interactly properly with the surrounding code.
```
torch.jit.script
def f(x):
val = torch._C.Foo(5, 3)
return val
```
- [x] Doesn't properly take in non-pointer classes. Can't define this function signature in cpp (We don't want to support this I believe).
```cpp
void combine(Foo x) {
```
- [x] Has some issues with memory for blobs when constructing multiple objects (fix constant propagation pass to not treat capsules as the same object).
```py
torch.jit.script
def f(x):
val = torch._C.Foo(5, 3)
val2 = torch._C.Foo(100, 0)
val.display()
print(val.add(3))
```
- [ ] Can't define multiple constructors (need to define overload string. Currently not possible since we don't support overloaded methods).
- [x] `init` is a little bit different syntax than `pybind`. `.init<...>()` instead of `.def(py::init<>())`
- [x] I couldn't figure out how to add some files into the build so they'd be copied to the `include/` directories, so I symlinked them manually.
- [ ] Currently, the conversion from Python into Torchscript doesn't work.
- [ ] Torchbind also currently requires Python/Pybind dependency. Fixing this would probably involve some kind of macro to bind into Python when possible.
- [ ] We pass back into Python by value, currently. There's no way of passing by reference.
- [x] Currently can only register one method with the same type signature. This is because we create a `static auto opRegistry`, and the function is templated on the type signature.
Somewhat blocked on https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/21177. We currently use some structures that will be refactored by his PR (namely `return_type_to_ivalue` and `ivalue_to_arg_type`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/21098
Differential Revision: D16634872
Pulled By: Chillee
fbshipit-source-id: 1408bb89ea649c27d560df59e2cf9920467fe1de
