Like I said in the other thread (Use Enzyme in flux - #7 by wsmoses) the code Chris provided is not a good way to call it because of the type unstable closure capture of dudt, p, and st. These should be passed explicitly as Const parameters for performance and other reasons.
M1 indeed is not officially supported, partially because we don’t have a dev machine or CI for it. If you can isolate and post which test fails on GitHub we can try to look into it.
Peculiar. It was on Windows, and now I cannot recreate it. I do not know the manifest of the time, though I do know that it was in a clean REPL. It is quite mysterious to me . Maybe a difference in Julia version?
Again, I think Enzyme is really promising, blazing fast when it works, and probably the best way forward. I really appreciate all the great work developers have put into it. It is just that, at the moment, it is not stable enough for those who are not prepared to invest extra effort in checking and debugging (again, for nontrivial examples).
For my particular issue, yes, the workaround works. But I ended up rewriting the function in a C-style approach: instead of higher order functions, just loop over stuff and increment a float. This works fine.
My other meta-gripe with Enzyme is that it is tricky to understand the error messages. Whenever something goes wrong, hundreds of lines of IR are dumped on the user. Again, I understand that mapping that back to Julia code is tricky, but in this form it is difficult to isolate errors and produce MWEs.
I’ve landed some code that will automatically throw an error, saying to enable runtimeActivity if it detects a scenario where it is needed. Hopefully that should at least partially abate issues (all the activity bugs on the Enzyme.jl tracker hit it).
@ChrisRackauckas am not sure, but our unreleased main branch is an unreleased main branch for a reason. It usually has a lot more fixes, but it also means we can break it (like I did over the weekend to update the ABI, which awaited a jll bump). Not sure if that’s what you ran into (I never tested your code myself).
In the past few days I have been trying to make Enzyme work on a medium-sized log posterior calculation. Ran into what turned out to be 2 (or 3?) separate issues, and got a lot of help from @wsmoses with isolating them as an MWE, at which point they were promptly fixed.
Just want to say thank you! And recommend Enzyme for everyone who is looking for a fast reverse-mode AD solution. Understandably the library is maturing and there are bugs, but they can be tracked down and the support from the authors is outstanding.
that’s what I was trying to convey. Is it perfect right now? No. But it’s definitely on the right path in terms of supporting the full language, and it’s moving pretty fast. Check your answers of course since it’s still early stages, but with v0.11 it’s really looking on track to where it needs to be.