mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lin Yuan <apefor...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [QUESTION] mxnet/Tuple vs nnvm/Tuple
Date Tue, 16 Apr 2019 21:02:51 GMT
Jun,

Thanks! I was also leaning towards your suggestion.
I have updated nnvm::Tuple to mxnet::Tuple for a few remaining places in
MXNet.

Best,

Lin

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:35 AM Jun Wu <wujun.nju@gmail.com> wrote:

> include/mxnet/tuple.h was first copied from nnvm in this PR
> <https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14270> so that we can make
> changes on it to support zero-dim and zero-size tensors without affecting
> TVM project. That PR has changed most of the places where nnvm::Tuple and
> nnvm::TShape were used to mxnet::Tuple and mxnet::TShape. If we still see a
> few locations not changed in the current codebase, we should change them to
> use mxnet Tuple as well for better cosmetics. The nnvm/tuple.h can be
> deprecated in MXNet.
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 10:44 PM Lin Yuan <apeforest@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Community,
> >
> > Currently in MXNet there are two Tuple template class defined in
> > mxnet/tuple.h and nnvm/tuple.h respectively. These two templates are
> higly
> > similar and most part are duplicated except for a couple of functions.
> > However, they were used mixedly in current codebase and causing conflict
> > sometimes.
> >
> > Is there any historical reason that we keep two copies of the same
> template
> > class? If not, can we refactor the code to consolidate into one?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Lin
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message