[quote="sho, post:10, topic:11682"] it means you get C code(not objects or executables compiled by LLVM) anyway right? [/quote]
Yes. However, the main reason we suggest the C route right now is because of some cleanup we need to do around AOT code generation. It should be possible to use LLVM to generate code to work with microTVM using GraphExecutor. I don't really recommend it yet as a starting point, because it's hard to debug and because we need to fix some minor problems with the way AOT works with the `llvm` backend. But, just wanted to say that in general LLVM is a better route to go than C if you're not as much concerned with debugging. [quote="sho, post:10, topic:11682"] Could you tell me why this list even exists? [/quote] You're right in that microTVM generally doesn't need to know the specific SoC right now--what mainly matters is that it knows the architecture so it knows which intrinsics to use. However, couple things: 1. it's often daunting to configure this all when you're new to microTVM. Having a way to just specify the SoC is convenient. 2. you could imagine a future where we may be able to do some optimizations based on the SoC (e.g. given a priori knowledge of the memory architecture or by consulting AutoTVM logs using this info) So we are keeping this around. Additionally, some vendors have expressed interest in using this information. --- [Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/what-is-target-in-tvm/11682/11) 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/c8d5ee1e20e6f8138b7e5aaf23b0651ae21da38c60b9403fc86fe48700319cd4).
