4 ms·
You are making good point, but I think you're missing some aspects and the title hints about it: we are also trying to address today's heterogeneity. By having
by Joky 7y ago
You are making good point, but I think you're missing some aspects and the title hints about it: we are also trying to address today's heterogeneity. By having a flexible infrastructure and (hopefully) an ecosystem with which the interaction cost is lowered, you can re-assemble more easily custom compilers for specific use-cases.
This does not make MLIR the best infrastructure for building an industrial embedded Javascript compiler for instance (just like you wrote B3 to move away from LLVM), but I am not convinced that between these two, MLIR is the niche ;-)
Time will tell!
- pizlonator 7y agoBut MLIR is so limited in what it can do - a specific style of SSA, a specific module and procedure structure, etc. Even the features that make it general (regions) represent a specific choice of how to do it. Great IRs represent an ideal fit between data structures, data flow style, control style, and the domain. Llvm is successful because it fits C so darn well - it’s like SSAified C. I’m not sure what MLIR is an ideal fit for. It just feels like another Phoenix.