Fix fusion replacement ordering#2150
Open
ricardoV94 wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
jessegrabowski
approved these changes
May 20, 2026
Member
jessegrabowski
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there anything in here that should be generalized to toposort in general, not just the elemwise fusion logic?
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Apparently sequential toposort is not as trivial as I hoped for (even knowing there is some specialized literature out there on it). Should have LEAN-proofed my algorithm hehe
On the positive side I learned that to correctly replace in topological order in PyTensor it's enough to sort directly connected nodes, no need to perform an absolute toposort of all replaced nodes, because indirect nodes will hold the right replacements due to how inplace replacement works.
Closes #2145