There is generally a tradeoff between the: - A0: The desire to preserve information during transformation. - A1: A growing set of attributes that is impossible to keep track of(thus preserve) during transformations.
>From the A1's pov, allowing set of attributes that changes the semantics of >the IR is in general not desirable. Since other pass writers may not be aware >of all the possible set of attributes and thus being mindful in preserving >them. The middle ground that we could reach here is to allow annotations, which only served as hints for future passes(that the code can be transformed in certain way). This means that the other pass writers can safely ignore the content of annotation itself. Note that this would certainly restrict the possible set of annotations that we can use(e.g. the object themselves should not refer to an active piece in the IR). -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/23#issuecomment-925354280
