junrushao1994 edited a comment on pull request #8750: URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/8750#issuecomment-898820399
Thanks Lily! I agree to have attributes on the `IRModule` level, so that we could add some metadata and guide the compiler behavior. It is consistent with the direction we are moving towards as a unified IR. <del>However, I have some concerns on whether we should remove `BaseFunc`-level annotations. </del> Sorry I misread! I thought "BaseFuncs to be able to remove it" means removing attributes in `BaseFunc`, but it turns out to refer to other things :-) One thing, which I understand it is not introduced by this PR (so no action needed in this PR :-) ), but would love to discuss a little bit if this design is the direction we want to move forward or move away from: I am not so sure about `DictAttrs` itself. From my PoV it is basically equivalent to `Map<String, ObjectRef>`, but more ad-hoc in terms of unnecessary access control and accessor patterns. As an example, recently, we refactored the ForNode in TIR with the `Map<String, ObjectRef>` as loop annotation instead of `DictAttrs`. Please let me know what you think :-) -- 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]
