> Thanks @Mousius . Given these fields are pretty relevant to compiler > configurations in traditional domain, it would be nice to also discuss prior > approaches(e.g. where those fields normally sits in say LLVM) for posterity. > This would also help us to make meaningful choices that aligns with existing > terminologies. My quick read is that they seems to be aligned, but would be > nice to double check.
Good idea @tqchen, one thing I've picked out from a second read of the LLVM approach is the term `Features` rather than `Arch` which we could potentially align on. I've updated the Prior Art section to link out to what I've seen as the flow in LLVM, though I am by no means an LLVM expert. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/71#issuecomment-1127465782 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/71/c1127465...@github.com>
