F/no more cstrings

[mbartling]

Replaces all cstrings (except for those used by sdtensor) with integers.

Massive savings, much wow.

@dboyliao can you suggest a cleaner way to add this functionality to all ops? It's pretty messy at the moment, but I think we can inject a simple tensor_name transformer that decorates each op with a "generate sref func" that gets called on snippet render.

[mbartling]

@neil-tan @dboyliao @Knight-X This PR uses static const uint32_t in place of #defines. The former has the implicit benefit of debug-ability since compilation with debug will output named symbols, and furthermore takes up the same size and number of instructions as the latter.

[dboyliao]

I think your approach is a good start except that I prefer it's implemented as an optimization pass. The reason for this is:

1. it make the ugraph easier to debug since the tensor name will be the same as original model file before the opt pass.
2. A good case for developing a code generator planner or a better way to store meta data (such as this tensor name -> int mapping)

However, I'll work on auto testing code generator first before I dig into this.

BTW, I think ubit has been merged into develop AFAIK. Can you change the merge base to develop?

[neil-tan]

@mbartling what's the run time to go with this? I'm getting a runtime error with this repo:

foundSimple MNIST end-to-end uTensor cli example (device)
[Error] ./uTensor/src/uTensor/core/context.cpp:70 @push Tensor "-122657359" not found

Checked out to this PR and generated the code

[neil-tan]

@mbartling As discussed, using the setup above:

• Add #include "models/deep_mlp_weight.hpp" to main.cpp or the model file
• In main.cpp ctx.get("y_pred:0") becomes ctx.get(sref_y_pred_0)
• In the model file: ctx.add(input_0, "x:0", 2) becomes ctx.add(input_0, sref_x_0, 2)

works with current runtime dev branch.

[mbartling]

@dboyliao Do we already have these changes in the current dev branch? If so we can close this PR

[dboyliao]

AFAIK, not yet. But I think you can still merge it because it's targeting ubit branch if it will make your work easier somehow. I can approve this PR. As for develop, since it went through a major refactoring, I think this PR need extra work to be merged into develop. Besides, it's using legacy api. Not of high priority considering we are moving toward rearch. How do you think?

[mbartling]

I still think this idea should be implemented for the reach, even if it means we close this PR. It will generate the absolute smallest models and is really a way to differentiate between debug/release build.

Thoughts?

[dboyliao]

Sure, I agree with you. But the new codegen code base has changed a lot comparing this PR. I need some time to think about how to integrate this PR to the next release code base. Probably will do it after next release.

[mbartling]

Actually, on second thought it really isn't necessary for the rearch since param names are bound to the operators in the input out name enums. So this is more a debug convenience. I think we can put it off for a while

[mbartling]

Feel free to close :)