> C is used for a variety of use-cases and is foundational to much of the
> software used in larger systems (not only embedded)
I am not denying that fact. Assembly language can also be used to build up a
broader spectrum of systems --just most people don't do that, and normal
audiences of tvm
> I also stated reasonings on why the interface_c name was a OK choice under
> that the context of C, because C is a language that is mostly used for
> embedded space -- rust do not have that same profile, as a result when we do
> the development we need to consider it under the new context of r
That particular RFC you were referring to is about C interface and not rust.
I also stated reasonings on why the interface_c name was a OK choice under that
the context of C, because C is a language that is mostly used for embedded
space -- rust do not have that same profile, as a result when w
I'd suggest your concerns might be better raised alongside
https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/pre-rfc-api-change-formalizing-c-backend-api/10380
:smile_cat:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/96#issuecomment-1373406483
You are receiving
> To incorporate that suggestion, this can be done through say
>
> * On compilation part, have proper namespace, file or folder structure to
> indicate the grouping (that we are looking at embedded rust) so to avoid
> confusion with other rust APIs.
> * (a) introducing a new namespace; (b) use a
