Let's do it in this thread.
I am working on the target id registry, but was curious about people's option
about one naming: "add_attr_option" vs "add_config_option".
In the RFC, to configure the schema of a target id, we allow using the syntax
below:
```
TVM_REGISTER_TARGET_ID("llvm")
.add_attr_option<Bool>("system_lib");
.add_attr_option<String>("mtriple");
.add_attr_option<String>("mattr");
```
This allows users to set 3 attributes of llvm: system_lib, mtriple and mattr.
I was wondering if it is slightly better to use "config" instead of "attr",
i.e. use "add_config_option" instead. The primary reason is that we have been
using "attr" too much in the codebase, which makes its meaning vague; but
config seems to be more informative in this case.
Would love to hear what you guys think :-)
---
[Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.ai/t/rfc-tvm-target-specification/6844/36) 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/693672439c067a57193e7cd12e761a9c5c46324b379ef0f917150077d72414a9).
