I agree with @tqchen that improving composite targets could be more beneficial
and general. We (with @junrushao1994 and @zhiics) previously attempted to
improve the target system to allow more flexible attributes, such as a pass
sequence / runtime / etc specifically for the target, which is very similar to
what TQ illustrated and what this RFC proposed, but found that it's not an easy
task due to the current target system implementation.
Meanwhile, the concept of compilation configuration has been used for some BYOC
backends already, but they are currently relying on PassContext. For example,
TensorRT codegen takes the configuration from PassContext during `relay.build`:
```python
mod, config = partition_for_tensorrt(mod, params)
target = "cuda"
with tvm.transform.PassContext(opt_level=3,
config={'relay.ext.tensorrt.options': config}):
lib = relay.build(mod, target=target, params=params)
```
Although the `config` here is generated internally, I think this could still be
a good driving example to see how could we make a composite target that
incorporates the backend specific config.
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/pre-rfc-compilation-configuration-representation/11372/9)
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/020892b0bb2509622e1cad07efa58dc7a794231fec3336480e355eb775cb84ee).
