Thanks for bringing this up!
Context is indeed a bad name when it is used to indicate a certain device,
because its meaning really varies depending on the “context”. In this case,
“device” is certainly an acceptable name and is a lot better than “context”.
Two thoughts:
1) when referring to a
@comaniac Great idea to only test for compilation success for large sub-graphs.
I agree on this approach. :+1:
For the clang++ part, it currently gets invoked in
`tvm.contrib.ndk.create_shared`, which is passed as the `fcompile` to
`lib.export_library()`. I guess it's good just as it is right
Thank you for your comments!
So there are two parts:
- What do we represent in Relay,
- what will be the function in the runtime.
I guess I'm reading agreement here that TorchScript functions are a reasonably
good fit for the runtime.
If we determine this function during the (currently trivia
Thanks! :coffee: :coffee:
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-search-based-automated-quantization/5483/22)
to respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
To unsubscribe from these emails, [click
here](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/email/uns
1. TVM uses
[RPCSession](https://tvm.apache.org/docs/api/python/rpc.html#tvm.rpc.RPCSession.context)
to create a remote context/device. We can also change this API to `device`.
2. In fact, I also plan to create a RFC to dlpack for the context name change.
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discuss
