@d-smirnov -- I think the design is stable (just waiting on @areusch), shall we
look to update the PRs :
* https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/8472
* https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/8509
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view
@tqchen merge?
--
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-rfcs/pull/23#issuecomment-930796849
@areusch a friendly ping!
--
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-rfcs/pull/22#issuecomment-930796609
Thanks @manupa-arm @Mousius and @leandron for bringing these points up.

Building off what you said, I just wanted to point out that I think that this
vote is really two questions rolled into one:
**Q1:** Whether the current system of tagging all code owners is working, and
should we revert it
Thanks @sjoerdmeijer , sorry for getting back to this late. If LLVM also
encodes the SVE vector as a special type(and not tying the n) it could be a
precedence that we can learn from. I do want to point out that the same
approach won't work when it comes to scalable matrix instruction, so it wo
Thanks guys for the discussion! The RFC is merged :-)
--
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-rfcs/pull/36#issuecomment-930344604
Merged #36 into main.
--
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-rfcs/pull/36#event-5382108357
