+1 I do think it would be valuable to add an AMD step to our CI. As we continue to improve performance, we might have to consider more instructions which are faster but are specific to the hardware architecture. We are doing a lot of Intel specific work, it would be a good sanity check that we continue to support AMD.
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 4:03 PM kellen sunderland < [email protected]> wrote: > Just looked at the mf16c work and wanted to mention Rahul clearly _was_ > thinking about AMD users in that PR. > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:46 PM kellen sunderland < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > From my perspective we're developing a few features like mf16c and MKLDNN > > integration specifically for Intel CPUs. It wouldn't hurt to make sure > > those changes also run properly on AMD cpus. > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 3:38 PM Hao Jin <[email protected] wrote: > > > >> I'm a bit confused about why we need extra functionality tests just for > >> AMD > >> CPUs, aren't AMD CPUs supporting roughly the same instruction sets as > the > >> Intel ones? In the very impossible case that something working on Intel > >> CPUs being not functioning on AMD CPUs (or vice versa), it would mostly > >> likely be related to the underlying hardware implementation of the same > >> ISA, to which we definitely do not have a good solution. So I don't > think > >> performing extra tests on functional aspect of the system on AMD CPUs is > >> adding any values. > >> Hao > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 5:50 PM Seth, Manu <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > +1 > >> > > >> > On 11/29/18, 2:39 PM, "Alex Zai" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > What are people's thoughts on having AMD machines tested on the > CI? > >> AMD > >> > machines are now available on AWS. > >> > > >> > Best, > >> > Alex > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > -- Rahul Huilgol
