Merged #12076 into main.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/12076#event-6981394712
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Thanks everyone for the discussions. We have agreed on the design principles
and will continue to explore scheduling options. Let's keep the RFC open for
final comments until the end of this week.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/77#i
Built docs for commit 765bbcc3db43c22e16e414ecfaf6249d95142f91 can be found
[here](https://pr-docs.tlcpack.ai/PR-12076/1/docs/index.html).
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/12076#issuecomment-1182460167
You are receiving this because you a
As per https://tvm.apache.org/docs/contribute/release_process.html#id3
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/12076
-- Commit Summary --
* [COMMUNITY] Add driazati key for release
-- File Changes --
M KEYS (48)
-- Patch Link
In that case, I think it would be nice to state we handle K1, and leave ONLY
serialization/deserialization out. This way we can have With style API, which
indicate that we are explicit entering the scope for any processing.
```c++
auto data = LLVMTarget::ParseIR(file_name);
With scope(mod_data);
@driazati could you give a bit more context here? is there a bug describing
what's wrong right now?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/11938#issuecomment-1182050322
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID
Thanks folks, just to come back on this, my main comment is wrt to the data
structure change, leverage the special mark so we don't break ABI of runtime
type
```
DataType::kScalableVectorLaneMark = -1
```
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/
> the purpose is not to codify it so that we can't change it, but just so that
> we are all on the same page here. perhaps we can incorporate definitions like
> this into the RFC text and into helper functions?
I agree
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/ap
Adding a [draft PR](https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/12066) to this
discussion.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/84#issuecomment-1181766176
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Thank you very much on the comments, suggestions, and discussion, and I'm quite
happy with how the design evolved over the course of the discussions!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/77#issuecomment-1182157349
You are receiving this be
@tqchen just to clarify, do we then add this to the DLPack repo or do we
consider this a specialized use of lane internal to TVM?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/18#issuecomment-1182206471
You are receiving this because you are subscr
Merged #11991 into v0.9.0.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/11991#event-6980196703
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
i have no concerns here, @manupa-arm feel free to submit this when you're ready
to start
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/81#issuecomment-1182188871
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
13 matches
Mail list logo
