-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 72
Open
Description
Dear all,
In Julia v1.10, the following function using @turbo
from LoopVectorization.jl runs without error and returns 10
:
using LoopVectorization
a = ones(10)
b = ones(11)
@inline function dot(A::AbstractArray{T}, B::AbstractArray{T}) where {T}
ret = zero(T)
@turbo for m ∈ indices((A, B), 1)
ret += A[m] * B[m]
end
ret
end
dot(a, b) # returns 10 in Julia v1.10
However, in Julia v1.11, the same code results in the following error:
ERROR: 10 and 11 are not equal.
This seems to stem from a bounds check triggered deep inside the _static_promote
function from Static.jl, likely when evaluating indices((A, B), 1)
together with @turbo
.
Question
- Is this change intentional (i.e., a feature) or a bug?
- In previous versions,
@turbo
appeared to skip such bounds checks and worked leniently over the shortest matching dimension. - In Julia v1.11, this stricter behavior is triggered — perhaps correctly — but it may break previous code that relied on implicit truncation via
indices
.
If this is intended, should users now explicitly write:
for m in 1:min(length(A), length(B))
While the bounds check may lead to more robust behavior, it also breaks backwards compatibility with earlier versions where this function ran fine.
I'd appreciate any clarification on whether this is expected behavior or if it indicates a bug in @turbo
or a related change in how indices
behaves with StaticArrays.
Thanks in advance!
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
No labels