> I agree we should support binary output. My thought is this would depend on
> the TVM target in use–but we can talk about it
Yeah I think so too. Like, I won't be good to always generated a .so and a .o
(for example) for the static runtime case, which afaics will only be
"interested" in the .o to wrap it using the "adapters" (`bundle.{c,cc}`) to
create a .so (dynamic case) or use link all the objects in a static executable
(static case). In both cases I understand `tvmc compile` should not generate a
`.so`.
Other use-cases, like for applications dlopen'ing the model library (.so)
generated by the `tvmc compile`, it would be good to have .so as an output for
command `compile`.
> –would it not make sense to treat `bundle.{c,cc}` as an implementation of
> the Project API?
Yep, I'm wondering it too. It makes sense to have "adapters" like that
implemented like a kind of project, so use the mechanism of the Project API.
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-tvmc-add-support-for-tvm/9049/15)
to respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
To unsubscribe from these emails, [click
here](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/email/unsubscribe/d233b77cfe6d3bbeafedeba76ec9cb39542aa29ab435e1169d0fd3aeb984be36).
