Hi @areusch, Thank you for your comment.
[quote="areusch, post:11, topic:11682"] 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] Yes, getting C source code is much easier for beginners like me especially when I need to debug the program. Just one thing. I was worried if I have only one option, using LLVM, that means it's difficult to deploy the TVM artifact to whatever platform we want. Like there might be some minor architectures (say for some minor microcontrollers) that LLVM doesn't support (so we have to develop LLVM backend ourselves to be able to emit executables for that minor architecture). [quote="areusch, post:11, topic:11682"] * it’s often daunting to configure this all when you’re new to microTVM. Having a way to just specify the SoC is convenient. * 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) [/quote] I'm strongly hoping for the case #2. TVM is developing very fast, so I'll try to catch up with its functionalities! --- [Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/what-is-target-in-tvm/11682/12) 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/54dc3babfa2af41826512430756cd377f08701c29dc09b93b17918027e05d664).
