The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: biubiuX / name: zxiong (b51436f04781e7ea2c718e6f949f8e2bdbfb78cf)

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/87188

• 📄 Preview Python docs built from this PR
• 📄 Preview C++ docs built from this PR
• ❓ Need help or want to give feedback on the CI? Visit our office hours

Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed.

✅ No Failures

As of commit f6ce0cb:
💚 Looks good so far! There are no failures yet. 💚

This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes.

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D40321550

Looks good to me, but there's a recent merge conflict

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D40321550

@kurtamohler mind taking another look ? thanks !

Looks good, thanks!

Just to make sure you're aware, you can filter all warnings at the Python level like this:

import warnings
warnings.filterwarnings('ignore')

But this also filters out all warnings in your project, not just the PyTorch ones, so I can see why this DISABLE_WARN flag is useful.

There is a loose plan to add a warning filter to the C++ side of PyTorch (part of pytorch/rfcs#43). The details aren't decided yet, but we could potentially add a Python binding for it. If/when that exists, you could use that instead of having to build PyTorch yourself

Thanks for the tip. We're the consumer of the model and we don't directly work on the python code. We're working with our partner to fix/adjust warning, but it would be great if we also have log/warning config on c++ side.

not sure if the workflow failure is caused by my change, is there anything I can do here ?

Yeah these failures don't seem to be related. Try rebasing just to make sure

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D40321550

Could anyone help me run the workflows ?

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D40321550

The two failing jobs actually do seem to be caused by your changes. I think I may have steered you wrong earlier--I had only seen the Device or resource busy error in the logs and assumed it wasn't related. But there's another error that happens earlier in the logs:

C:\actions-runner\_work\pytorch\pytorch\c10/core/TensorImpl.h(1758): error C2275: 'c10::UserWarning': illegal use of this type as an expression
C:\actions-runner\_work\pytorch\pytorch\c10/core/TensorImpl.h(1758): note: see declaration of 'c10::UserWarning'
C:\actions-runner\_work\pytorch\pytorch\c10/core/TensorImpl.h(1758): error C2064: term does not evaluate to a function taking 0 arguments

I guess the macros are maybe acting slightly differently on windows builds? Not sure

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D40321550

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D40321550

@kurtamohler mind taking another look(also trigger the workflow) ? It indeed seems to be a subtle preprocessor bug in MVSC(gcc, clang works ok).

gentle ping @kurtamohler ; )

@pytorchbot merge

Merge failed

Reason: Approval needed from one of the following (Rule 'superuser'):
qxy11, chauhang, chenyang78, shunting314, soulitzer, ...

Oh right, forgot we need @ezyang's approval before merging

@pytorchbot merge

Merge started

Your change will be merged once all checks pass (ETA 0-4 Hours).

Learn more about merging in the wiki.

Questions? Feedback? Please reach out to the PyTorch DevX Team