hi @giuseros,
> About the implementation we will have `aot_runtime.h` in a separate > `src/runtime/aot` folder Would it be possible to create just a library e.g. `src/runtime/crt/aot_executor`? This will make things less complicated when the C runtime is distributed with a TVM wheel. > So the short answer is that we don’t have a clear idea yet. But we were > hoping to actually develop a pattern to use it, as you suggest. That’s though > something I think deserves a separate and more detailed discussion > :slight_smile: Okay that seems reasonable. I think there are definitely some good use cases for `resource_handle`, but want to make sure the abstraction is at the right level. > Basically we get rid of the system library in c, but not of the dynamic > system library in c++ (where it probably is less of an issue). This means > this work could possibly be extended to support c++ runtime in the future. Yeah I think having a few implementation of `tir.call_packed` may provide more opportunities for future development. cc @tqchen for more thoughts here. It would be nice to contemplate how we might be able to keep compatibility with `--system-lib` even if it may be overkill in some situations. I think a small C wrapper that effectively implements a `tir.call_packed` to instantiate the model could be one way to do this. We also don't need to settle on this before making a first implementation of AOT in TIR. > Yes, this exactly what I meant. I am looking forward to the RFC! Great, I'm iterating on this a bit and hope to post it now next week. --- [Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/implementing-aot-in-tvm/9206/13) 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/19ddf48bab4f900bbf067a32361e88d665bff260b6299d8eea8cae9e47f12413).
