Handle conflicts with existing type during backward remat#9953
Merged
Conversation
neildhar
force-pushed
the
fix-conflicting-layout-remat
branch
from
c9be3f7 to
59d8b7b
Compare
When backward remat identifies an operand that is already in the desired encoding, it skips that operand in the slice. However, we do not record the desired layout for that value in `layouts`. As a result, we cannot detect if we also encounter a conflicting encoding for that same value. When that happens, the value is rematerialised, resulting in an encoding mismatch with the user that expected the original encoding. To fix this, record the original encoding in `layouts`, without adding it to the slice. This way, if a conflicting encoding is encountered, we will just bail on backward remat.
neildhar
force-pushed
the
fix-conflicting-layout-remat
branch
from
59d8b7b to
79aff04
Compare
Mogball
approved these changes
Apr 8, 2026
plognjen
pushed a commit
to plognjen/triton
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2026
…g#9953) When backward remat identifies an operand that is already in the desired encoding, it skips that operand in the slice. However, we do not record the desired layout for that value in `layouts`. As a result, we cannot detect if we also encounter a conflicting encoding for that same value. When that happens, the value is rematerialised, resulting in an encoding mismatch with the user that expected the original encoding. To fix this, record the original encoding in `layouts`, without adding it to the slice. This way, if a conflicting encoding is encountered, we will just bail on backward remat.
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
2 participants
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.
When backward remat identifies an operand that is already in the desired
encoding, it skips that operand in the slice. However, we do not record
the desired layout for that value in
layouts.As a result, we cannot detect if we also encounter a conflicting
encoding for that same value. When that happens, the value is
rematerialised, resulting in an encoding mismatch with the user that
expected the original encoding.
To fix this, record the original encoding in
layouts, without addingit to the slice. This way, if a conflicting encoding is encountered, we
will just bail on backward remat.