tqchen commented on issue #9022:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/9022#issuecomment-921945722
Thanks @manupa-arm. I agree that putting TVMBAW as a peer to heap is not
right(that was meant as an example to demonstrate the viewpoint. I do not
necessary want to enforce heap as a
tqchen commented on issue #9022:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/9022#issuecomment-921820526
Please allow me to explain the overall rationale here, in particular over
the term "constraint"
- C0: On one hand, we want a "default" memory to be generically accessible
(per
tqchen commented on issue #9022:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/9022#issuecomment-921220669
Thanks @manupa-arm . I understand that proposal R4 can also work by having a
pass to convert "global" to something more specialize as a pass (essentially R1
and R4 are not that different
tqchen commented on issue #9022:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/9022#issuecomment-921134533
Thanks @manupa-arm . Trying to capture some of the discussions.
- Right now the "global" scope translate to something that can be accessed
by CPU, and there was no requirement of
tqchen commented on issue #9022:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/9022#issuecomment-920896447
So in the above post I tried to summarize the state. Now let me try to share
some of my thoughts based on the summary.
First of all, R0 and R1 are not that different in nature.
tqchen commented on issue #9022:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/9022#issuecomment-920882592
Thanks for the discussions. Before we suggest a resolution, it would be
helpful
to summarize the discussions so far.
# Semantics of Allocate and storage_scope
Allocate
tqchen commented on issue #9022:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/9022#issuecomment-920841982
@manupa-arm in cpu we do not necessarily differentiate local from global for
now as they are from the same namespace.
I can understand the need from the micro side, and I believe
tqchen commented on issue #9022:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/9022#issuecomment-920486224
Right, this the gets to the target dependent generation regime where
TargetKind attribute is indeed the right solution. We should also send a PR to
add comments to that code block so we
tqchen commented on issue #9022:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/9022#issuecomment-920463412
@mbs-octoml I believe the current behavior is intended.
In the context of CPU, we want to preserve small alloca until the code
generation point. And then the code will generate
