[GitHub] [tvm] mbrookhart opened a new pull request #7522: [ONNX] use checked_type instead of type_annotation

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

mbrookhart opened a new pull request #7522:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/7522


   @jwfromm I recently ran into an error where the W input to an LSTM was not a variable, so this type_annotation call failed, so I switched it to the more generic checked_type. Updating the test to hit this case is complicated, do you want to see a regression test for this?


----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [tvm] jwfromm commented on pull request #7522: [ONNX] use checked_type instead of type_annotation

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

jwfromm commented on pull request #7522:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/7522#issuecomment-786274764


   I think its fine to skip the test in this case, it makes much more sense to use `checked_type`.


----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [tvm] jwfromm merged pull request #7522: [ONNX] use checked_type instead of type_annotation

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

jwfromm merged pull request #7522:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/7522


   


----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org