On 8 February 2012 23:28, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 02/09/2012 12:15 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>
>> On 02/08/2012 11:11 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8 February 2012 14:46, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>> wrote:
On 02/05/2012 10:57 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>
>
>>>
On 02/09/2012 12:15 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 02/08/2012 11:11 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 8 February 2012 14:46, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 02/05/2012 10:57 PM, mark florisson wrote:
Hey,
I created a CEP for opencl support:
http://wiki.cython.org/enhancements/opencl
What do y
On 02/08/2012 11:11 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 8 February 2012 14:46, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 02/05/2012 10:57 PM, mark florisson wrote:
Hey,
I created a CEP for opencl support:
http://wiki.cython.org/enhancements/opencl
What do you think?
To start with my own conclusion on this
On 8 February 2012 17:35, Dimitri Tcaciuc wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> On 02/05/2012 10:57 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> I don't really know how good the Intel and AMD CPU drivers are w.r.t. this
>> -- I have seen the Intel driver emit "vectorizing"
On 8 February 2012 14:46, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 02/05/2012 10:57 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> I created a CEP for opencl support:
>> http://wiki.cython.org/enhancements/opencl
>> What do you think?
>
>
> To start with my own conclusion on this, my feel is that it is too li
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 02/05/2012 10:57 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>
> I don't really know how good the Intel and AMD CPU drivers are w.r.t. this
> -- I have seen the Intel driver emit "vectorizing" and "could not
> vectorize", but didn't explore the circum
On 02/05/2012 10:57 PM, mark florisson wrote:
Hey,
I created a CEP for opencl support: http://wiki.cython.org/enhancements/opencl
What do you think?
To start with my own conclusion on this, my feel is that it is too
little gain, at least for a GPU solution. There's already Theano for
trivial
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Sturla Molden wrote:
> On 07.02.2012 18:22, Dimitri Tcaciuc wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I understand you, maybe you could elaborate on that?
>
>
> OpenCL code is a text string that is compiled when the program runs. So it
> can be generated from run-time data. Think of
On 7 February 2012 17:58, Sturla Molden wrote:
> On 07.02.2012 18:22, Dimitri Tcaciuc wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I understand you, maybe you could elaborate on that?
>
>
> OpenCL code is a text string that is compiled when the program runs. So it
> can be generated from run-time data. Think of it li
On 7 February 2012 18:01, mark florisson wrote:
> On 7 February 2012 17:22, Dimitri Tcaciuc wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Sturla Molden wrote:
>>> On 05.02.2012 23:39, Dimitri Tcaciuc wrote:
>>>
3. Does it make sense to make OpenCL more explicit?
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it takes the use
On 7 February 2012 17:22, Dimitri Tcaciuc wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Sturla Molden 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
>> s
On 07.02.2012 18:22, Dimitri Tcaciuc wrote:
I'm not sure I understand you, maybe you could elaborate on that?
OpenCL code is a text string that is compiled when the program runs. So
it can be generated from run-time data. Think of it like dynamic HTML.
Again, not sure what you mean here. A
On 7 February 2012 13:52, Sturla Molden 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 don't know why you think th
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Sturla Molden 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
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.
Heuristics and
automatic switching between, say, CPU and GPU is great for eg. Sage
use
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:21 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 6 February 2012 07:22, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> mark florisson, 06.02.2012 00:12:
>>> On 5 February 2012 22:39, Dimitri Tcaciuc wrote:
3. Does it make sense to make OpenCL more explicit? Heuristics and
automatic switching between
On 6 February 2012 07:22, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 06.02.2012 00:12:
>> On 5 February 2012 22:39, Dimitri Tcaciuc wrote:
>>> 3. Does it make sense to make OpenCL more explicit? Heuristics and
>>> automatic switching between, say, CPU and GPU is great for eg. Sage
>>> users, but maybe
mark florisson, 06.02.2012 00:12:
> On 5 February 2012 22:39, Dimitri Tcaciuc wrote:
>> 3. Does it make sense to make OpenCL more explicit? 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
>>
On 5 February 2012 22:39, Dimitri Tcaciuc wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Couple of thoughts based on some experience with OpenCL...
>
> 1. This may be going outside the proposed purpose, but some algorithms
> such as molecular simulations can benefit from a fairly large amount
> of constant data loaded at the
Mark,
Couple of thoughts based on some experience with OpenCL...
1. This may be going outside the proposed purpose, but some algorithms
such as molecular simulations can benefit from a fairly large amount
of constant data loaded at the beginning of the program and persisted
in between invocations
Hey,
I created a CEP for opencl support: http://wiki.cython.org/enhancements/opencl
What do you think?
Mark
___
cython-devel mailing list
cython-devel@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
21 matches
Mail list logo
