Based on my experience at several organizations, dynamic shape support is obviously very important, particularly along with the popularity of large language models. Also, efficiently supporting dynamic shape would be one of the major appealing features of a "modern" DLC. I think the above comments have also reached the agreement of importance of dynamic shape. The major argument is whether we need to have separate PRs to land this feature.
IMHO, Relax is already one of the components of Unity, and the current proposal again only contains the most value part of Relax which provides a minimum E2E compilation flow to enable the support of a dynamic model. This somehow has been working well before in both TVM and other open source project since the component doesn't blocking/breaking the current uses/deployment. For example, the first version of Relay also had IR, simple lowering, and necessary passes to quickly unblock the users/developers (e.g. AWS) who want to give it a try. Afterwards, we iterated on it many times to improve both the design and implementation. As a contributor of TVM, I would encourage we focus more on the design itself and spot the design flaws and the missing key features that we should address so that users (some of them are already waiting for Relax as mentioned here) can quickly check it out and bring us back with more insightful feedback or directly contribute to the project. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/89#issuecomment-1272328462 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/89/c1272328...@github.com>
