You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@tvm.apache.org by Animesh Jain <no...@github.com> on 2019/08/06 23:50:18 UTC

Re: [dmlc/tvm] [RFC] AlterOpLayout Pass Refactoring (#3670)

What do you guys think about having `Layout` as a member of `TensorType`? Currently `Type` basically means dtype and shape. I think it is very useful to have `Layout` there as well. If thats the case, the `Legalize` API will get arg_dtypes, and thus layout, enabling transformation based on input layouts.

This also means `infer_type` gets more complicated, as it will have to infer layout as well. However, I think it should be fine to have some Layouts as undefined/non-inferable (something like that).

@tqchen @merrymercy @zhiics 

-- 
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/3670#issuecomment-518884668