> A couple of thoughts...
>
> * We should have a common facility that represents a scope in which names
> need to be unique. Conceptually it could be a set of "known" strings (that
> are presumed used), and something (like a private counter) to generate a
> unique suffix. The use would be `new_name = GenerateName("foo")`. If `foo`
> had already been generated, `new_name` would be set to `"foo4"` (for
> example). This should not produce global variables (or any IR objects), just
> names.
>
>
> * This RFC still doesn't settle the question whether "name_hint" is a
> final name or not. I'm open to requiring that global symbols are given final
> names from the beginning, not hints.
Thanks for the comments @kparzysz-quic. I agree that we could have the
`NameSupply` methods return Strings and make sure that `GlobalVars` are created
using strings provided by a NameSupply (eventually one contained within the
IRModule). This way, the `NameSupply` could be used for other name mangling
scenarios where GlobalVars are not needed.
Regarding the `name_hint` being a final name. I am too of this opinion (it
should be a final name) and believe that it already works this way. If I am not
wrong, the only edge case is where we use the `global_symbol` attribute instead.
@mbs-octoml @tqchen any thoughts?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/84#issuecomment-1173984996
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/84/c1173984...@github.com>
