Hi @alopez_13 , this RFC is still under restructuring. TBH, I've already
finished restructuring the flows and tests for most of the parts, but I'm still
implementing the select-and-prune partitioner.
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-byoc-android-nnapi-integration/907
Out of curiosity. What is the status for the RFC/PR?
Thanks!
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-byoc-android-nnapi-integration/9072/8)
to respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
To unsubscribe from these emails, [click
here](https://di
Sounds good to me for now. We could check whether it is too user unfriendly or
not in the PR and improve it if needed.
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-byoc-android-nnapi-integration/9072/7)
to respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
@comaniac Great idea to only test for compilation success for large sub-graphs.
I agree on this approach. :+1:
For the clang++ part, it currently gets invoked in
`tvm.contrib.ndk.create_shared`, which is passed as the `fcompile` to
`lib.export_library()`. I guess it's good just as it is right
Thanks for the clarification, so the codegen has to generate and compile C++
code to be a shared library; while runtime needs to construct a model graph (or
engine). It seems clear to me, and we could discuss the implementation detail
about when and where to invoke `clang++` in the PR.
For te
