tqchen commented on pull request #8463: URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/8463#issuecomment-881063815
Thanks everyone for sharing the thoghts. First of all, I think we all agree that we should put storage scope in the type, so that the information can flow clearly from to the use site. On the other hand, there can be certain cases when duplicated information appear, say in the following two assignments, the additional b's type annotation was duplicated because it can be inferred from a, but nevertheless it can also appear in the IR as long as we have clear consistency checks. ```python a : int = some_value() b : int = a ``` That is why I bought up the C0 and C1 distinguishment. As @kparzysz-quic said, on this particular case the argument can also go the other way if we view the Buffer as the assignment(declaration) as a whole. So if folks feel strongly that the scope information can be removed, I am not too attached to it. I think we should consider more seriously though if it is about the `dtype` information, since it is more inherently part of DLTensor spec and having a clear field that is checked consistently would help in most of the case. -- 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. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
