Jianhui-Li wrote:
> > We really just need a "mlir-runner" with target-platform as command
> > parameters.
>
> What kind of "target-platform" command parameters do you have in mind? (other
> than what we do now)
The current way of mlir-cpu-runner using the share library name to indicate
Jianhui-Li wrote:
> > We really just need a "mlir-runner" with target-platform as command
> > parameters.
>
> What kind of "target-platform" command parameters do you have in mind? (other
> than what we do now)
The current way of mlir-cpu-runner using the share library name to indicate
Jianhui-Li wrote:
> > At some point it would be nice to have some design document or
> > documentation somewhere explaining how all these MLIR runners works,
> > including this one.
>
> The idea is to eventually consolidate all runners into one. This PR is just
> another piece of the puzzle.
Jianhui-Li wrote:
> > At some point it would be nice to have some design document or
> > documentation somewhere explaining how all these MLIR runners works,
> > including this one.
>
> The idea is to eventually consolidate all runners into one. This PR is just
> another piece of the puzzle.
Jianhui-Li wrote:
@rengolin @joker-eph @Hardcode84
FYI that this PR enables the current GPU dialect on Intel GPU as is, without
introducing stream/queue to the current GPU dialect.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65539
___
cfe-commits
Jianhui-Li wrote:
@rengolin @joker-eph @Hardcode84
FYI that this PR enables the current GPU dialect on Intel GPU as is, without
introducing stream/queue to the current GPU dialect.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65539
___
cfe-commits
