tvm-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Gilles <notificati...@github.com>
Subject Re: [dmlc/tvm] [RFC] More PackedFunc metadata (#2983)
Date Mon, 08 Apr 2019 01:46:44 GMT
>From other thread:

@tqchen:
> I will summarize some of my take here. I like the idea of Node hierarchy compile time
generation. This is something I have thought about and discussed with @jroesch for a while
and might help [#2523 (comment)](https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/issues/2523#issuecomment-458821056)
> 
> It is always tempting to automate more parts of wrapper generation. However, our past
experiences suggest that the automatic wrapper generation is never perfect. Think about how
can we support keyword arguments, good pythonic style docstring and so on. It is also harder
for developers to find the actual implementation of the "generated API" since some of that
is generated at runtime. Eventually, we find that it is simpler to just do a manual wrapping,
which gives us all the good native features, docs, and keep PackedFunc simple (by only support
positional arguments without any meta-data).

@nhynes:
> This idea actually comes a lot :P [#2328 (comment)](https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/pull/2328#issuecomment-450001679)
> 
> I know, for sure, that we could get good docs with _really good_ codegen like that offered
by Rust macros, but I also know for sure that we're not about to rewrite TVM in Rust :)
> 
> I think that the boilerplate really does bother new (advanced) users who want to use
TVM as a tool. I wonder if there's a way forward here that satisfies all desiderata?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/issues/2983#issuecomment-480655648
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, 7-Bit, 0 bytes)
View raw message