Great work! I believe this will make "scheduling" more flexible and intuitive!
However, will this increase the coupling between the schedule and the lower
pass, which may lead to an increase in the complexity of the lower pass?
By the way, I'm also looking forward to know how to auto-schedule
Well-received with thanks!
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-tensorir-a-schedulable-ir-for-tvm/7872/7)
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/unsub
Looking forward to ansor/auto schedule! Perhaps more polyhedron models work as
well?
---
[Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/discuss-tvm-v0-8-roadmap/8139/9)
to respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
To unsubscribe from these emails, [click
her
> **P1: Relay -> TIR::Function -> runtime.Module**
>
> As an alternative approach, we can first lower the relay function into a
> TIR::Function that corresponds to the low-level actions taken by the runtime.
Sounds great! BTW, does it mean the operators in the graph or sub-graph will be
descr
Thanks @areusch for reply!
However, my maily question is that how do we express the op, like conv, in a
subgraph. Still TE with python API or other C++ expression?
I mainly focus on the expression of the operators like conv, which programming
in python by compute(some placeholder and lambda)
Ah, I realize that I got it wrong before. Graph AOT compiler will not affect
the operator's programming model.
But I still hope you @areusch could help me confirm whether my current
thinking is correct.
Thanks a lot!
---
[Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/guideline-relay-aot
Thanks a lot! @areusch
---
[Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/guideline-relay-aot/5977/11) 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/unsubscribe/b1128321225e9ec
