A belated thank you for sharing further thoughts on this @tqchen and
@kparzysz-quic . I am on holiday this week (and a little bit of next), but want
to pick this up soon after that. In the mean time, some remarks/questions from
my side.
First of all, the ABI discussion goes over my head at the
@smeijer1234 to be more specific. I was recommending an approach that won't
break the ABI.
Introdice
```
DataType::kScalableVectorLaneMark = -1
```
And in DataType, introduce a method IsScalable(), which checks if the lane
equals -1 and if yes return true. This way we reuse the data layout of
@areusch thanks for asking! sorry I was in vacation by the time of the post.
@vinx13 and I are actively drafting a release note, and will cut a release
candidate by next Monday (Nov 1, 2021). If there is any small commit after
Monday that needs to be included in the RC, please let us know in thi
@areusch @mehrdadh Thanks for the initial reviews and inputs. I've fixed some
grammar in the text I found on the second read and incorporated your
suggestions.
I believe I can go ahead promoting that to a RFC by creating a PR at
https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/ ?
---
[Visit
Topic](ht
