[quote="areusch, post:4, topic:9643"]
The main question I have though is: if we are just going to hoist tensors out
of operator implementations, why do we need to have a way to lookup PrimFunc
workspace size? Can’t we just get that by looking at the arguments?
[/quote]
We think they will get h
Closed #7861.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/7861#event-4601315776
Thanks for contributing to TVM! Please refer to guideline
https://tvm.apache.org/docs/contribute/ for useful information and tips. After
the pull request is submitted, please request code reviews from
[Reviewers](https://github.com/apache/incubator-tvm/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.md#reviewers)
b
To further illustrate what I meant by the impact of compiler optimizations, i
ran the following quick experiment:
```
// test.cc
#include
[quote="giuseros, post:29, topic:9206"]
>From what I understand @kparzysz you are saying that the internal functions
>don’t matter (they will be static private functions) but that the runner
>function should have this signature. Can I ask you why?
[/quote]
The reason is that this is the signat
Thanks @giuseros . To just discuss a bit on the difference between the
following two type erased interface
## X0: Function with typeid
```c
typedef int (*TVMBackendPackedCFunc)(TVMValue* args, int* type_codes, int
num_args,
TVMValue* out_ret_value, int*
Hi all,
Thanks for the interesting discussion! So, we all agree that there are three
points here:
* Backend API
* Calling convention
* Runtime API
As things stand today, memory allocation is part of the backend API. This will
change with global memory planning, but for now I would tend to ski
