hi @stoa,
Thanks for the elaborate RFC here! You bring up a bunch of great points.
This is a really strong proposal and I think overall fairly well aligned with
the direction I want to take microTVM. Particularly since similar code has been
posted to the forum before, it would be great to h
PR 7365 has landed -- heads-up that at `main`, GraphRuntime is now named
GraphExecutor! VM version to follow.
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-rename-graphruntime-and-ilk-to-e-g-graphexecutor/9255/14)
to respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing li
@masahi Yeah. We should allow to embed IR fragments, functions that produce IR
fragments, or replace some tokens with caller specified IR fragments into the
script :-)
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-tensorir-a-schedulable-ir-for-tvm/7872/61)
to respond.
You are r
@junrushao1994 If by "meta programming" you mean an ability to call python
function from script to generate other code, and embed the generated code into
the calling context, then YES, we absolutely need this! I think it's called
"splicing" or "unquote" in the literature.
The lack of such fe
@altanh Thanks for the input. I think you're right, knowledge of the layout is
not required, and I can remove that.
With regard to your concern about the list of ndarrays -- the ndarrays in the
list are meant to be batched (I should make this clearer in the documentation,
though). The intenti
Yeah, to fully replace IRBuilder, there are still some missing elements of TVM
script: meta programming and hygiene macros. Let's consider the support after
the upstreaming is done :-)
CC @tqchen
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-tensorir-a-schedulable-ir-for-tvm/787
# Standalone code generator and C runtime for STM32 bare-metal devices
## Background
This RFC aims to collect the TVM community feedback on the following subjects:
- Standalone compilation targeting embedded bare-metal platforms
- ML user API for embedded applications
- Integration of the TVM w
Thanks for such a great suggestion. Yes, we do support IRBuilder for TensorIR.
However, it is not recommended. Because it is likely to generate illegal or
opaque IR (which lacks some of the information). Besides, there are so many
attributes/annotations (e.g block read/write regions and block
Thanks, @yzh119. Currently, we have not considered the cross-kernel schedule in
TensorIR. But it may be possible if we make it as one large kernel. Could you
please show an example? (e.g. the IR before and after the schedule)
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-tensorir
