On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Sturla Molden <stu...@molden.no> wrote: > On 05.02.2012 23:39, Dimitri Tcaciuc wrote: > >> 3. Does it make sense to make OpenCL more explicit? > > > No, it takes the usefuness of OpenCL away, which is that kernels are text > strings and compiled at run-time.
I'm not sure I understand you, maybe you could elaborate on that? By "explicit" I merely meant that the user will explicitly specify that they're working on OpenCL-enabled array or certain bit of Cython code will get compiled into OpenCL program etc. > >> Heuristics and >> automatic switching between, say, CPU and GPU is great for eg. Sage >> users, but maybe not so much if you know exactly what you're doing >> with your machine resources. E.g just having a library with thin >> cython-adapted wrappers would be awesome. I imagine this can be >> augmented by arrays having a knowledge of device-side/client-side >> (which would go towards addressing the issue 1. above) > > > Just use PyOpenCL and manipulate kernels as text. Python is excellent for > that - Cython is not needed. If you think using Cython instead of Python > (PyOpenCL and NumPy) will be important, you don't have a CPU bound problem > that warrants the use of OpenCL. Again, not sure what you mean here. As I mentioned in the thread, PyOpenCL worked quite fine, however if Cython is getting OpenCL support, I'd much rather use that than keeping a dependency on another library. > Sturla > > > > > _______________________________________________ > cython-devel mailing list > cython-devel@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel _______________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list cython-devel@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
