[quote="ANSHUMAN.TRIPATHY, post:8, topic:6129"] But don’t you think the **“out of scope from TVM”** is applicable for all frontends. As all frontends first need to beakdown the model received and put all the pieces together to in terms of TVM. [/quote] No. For example, both Torchscript and ONNX has "If" and "While" IR node etc. to support control flow. It is framework's job to lower Python control flow to corresponding IR constructs and TVM's job is to convert these control flow IR constructs to Relay equivalent. But for you, Chainer lacks the first part, so you need to implement it if you want to support control flow. This should not be a TVM dev's concern and that's what I mean by "out of scope" of TVM. chainer-compiler already can already translate Python control flow to ONNX, so we shouldn't duplicate this effort.
[quote="ANSHUMAN.TRIPATHY, post:8, topic:6129"] As you mentioned utility part here, i believe that is applicable for all frontends then. [/quote] Yes, in principle frontend code can be separated from main TVM repo. But for frontends that have been justified to be added to TVM, it makes user's and developer's lives much easier if we put frontend code inside TVM (no need to install separate packages, prevent API break etc.). But right now we are talking about whether or not to add Chainer frontend to TVM. What I mean is, even if we decide that we do not want to add chainer to our frontend, you can still go ahead and continue developing it outside of TVM. If enabling Chainer -> TVM path is your goal, this should be an acceptable solution. --- [Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.ai/t/introduce-new-frontend-for-chainer/6129/9) to respond. You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode. To unsubscribe from these emails, [click here](https://discuss.tvm.ai/email/unsubscribe/d9fcb42fb8714ec93333b3f7a6e0479d495e2a653418c22fbaaaa725dc2edefb).
