Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
chore(deps): bump teeny submodule to main (dispatch_values, scan_, subsample, slice_along) - #54
Conversation
The pin sat at dcd591c, the tip of teeny's stale `claude/fastfields-teeny-refactor-js42id` integration branch, which is 125 commits behind teeny's `main`. That is now the branch this project tracks, so point `.gitmodules` at `main` too rather than at a branch that has not moved since the refactor started. Brings in, among 125 commits: - dispatch_values, product-form runtime->static dispatch (teeny#465) - the forward+backward scan_ sweep idiom docs (teeny#466) - scan_/scan (teeny#254), unfold (#256), subsample (#258), peel_zip, index_select, in-place maximum_/minimum_, sqdist/dist, host-side atomic fetch_add_/sub_ (#257) - the breaking rename take_along -> slice_along (teeny#423) The rename is the only breaking change that could reach us; a tree-wide grep for `take_along` across all fastfields repos finds no call sites (only two prose mentions of unrelated names in TEENIFICATION_REVIEW.md), so no downstream fixups are needed. Verified: `make -C fastfields-cpu-lib clean test` with CXX=clang++ and CXX=g++, before and after the bump. All 11 suites PASS with byte-identical check counts (2352/4622/704/5092/326/465/854/186/4130/191/4577).
Agent: About the red ❌ on |
Agent:
claude-fastfields-to-teenyClosesfastfields/fastfields-lib#106. Prerequisite for #50 (the regulariser tap-table engine). Part of the teeny-refactor umbrella (fastfields-lib#21).
What changed
Two lines:
external/teeny:dcd591c→5c46bd4(teenymaintip, +125 commits)..gitmodules:branch = claude/fastfields-teeny-refactor-js42id→branch = main.The old pin was the tip of teeny's stale
claude/fastfields-teeny-refactor-js42idbranch, which has not moved since the refactor began —
git ls-remoteconfirms itstill points at exactly
dcd591c.mainis what this project tracks now, so.gitmodulesshould say so.What it brings in
Verified against teeny's actual
git log dcd591c..main, not a summary:dispatch_values— product-form runtime→static dispatchscan_sweep idiom docsscan_/scansequential fold along one axisunfold<Axis>(size, step)sliding/strided window viewsubsample<Axes...>(k, starts...)coloured-lattice sugarpeel_zip<Axes...>(a,b[,c])lock-step iterationindex_select<Axis>(idx)gathermaximum_/minimum_sqdist/distwrappersfetch_add_/sub_dot/sqdistfast pathPlus a large amount of unrelated hardening (signedness-aware offset decode in
dot/sqdist/peel_zip, the-DTNY_NO_NEGATIVE_INDEXCI variant, theout-of-place and in-place
__restrict__linear fast paths).Breaking changes and downstream impact
Exactly two commits in the range are marked breaking:
3c4ec01 refactor!: rename take_along to slice_along(teeny#423)8458067 refactor(iterate)!: move scan_/scan's axis<A>{} tag to trailing(teeny#348)The
scan_tag move cannot break us:scan_did not exist atdcd591c, so thereare no call sites to break.
For the rename, I grepped every fastfields repo (
fastfields-kernels,-cpu-impl,-cpu-lib,-cuda-impl,-cuda-lib,-lib, and the Python repos)for
take_along:Zero call sites. The only hits anywhere for the #254–259 family of names are
two prose mentions of
scan_/subsample/index_selectinTEENIFICATION_REVIEW.md(the document that requested those features), whichare descriptive text, not code. So no downstream fixups ride along in this PR.
Verification
make -C fastfields-cpu-lib clean test, full rebuild, both compilers, before andafter the bump. Check counts are byte-identical across all four runs:
test_distancetest_distance_meshtest_distance_splinetest_posdeftest_pushpulltest_reg_fieldtest_reg_flowtest_reg_optest_resizetest_restricttest_splincfailures: 0/PASSEDon every line,exit=0on every run. 23,499 checks total,no coverage gained or lost — which is the expected shape for a pin bump that adds
new API surface without changing any API we already call.
CUDA is compile/link-only in this environment (no nvcc here, no GPU in CI), so the
cuda-impl/cuda-libpath is unexercised by this PR beyond the fact that ittouches no CUDA source.
Generated by Claude Code