I think it's worth a discussion to do a sanity check. While generally these instructions are standardized, we also made the experience with ARM that the theory and reality sometimes don't match. Thus, it's always good to check.
In the next months we are going to refactor our slave creation processes. Chance Bair has been working on rewriting Windows slaves from scratch (we used images that haven't really been updated for 2 years - we still don't know what was done on them) and they're ready soon. In the following months, we will also port our Ubuntu slaves to the new method (don't have a timeline yet). Ideally, the integration of AMD instances will only be a matter of running the same pipeline on a different instance type. In that Case, it should not be a big deal. If there are big differences, that's already a yellow flag for compatibility, but that's unlikely. But in that case, we would have to make a more thorough time analysis and whether it's worth the effort. Maybe, somebody else could also lend us a hand and help us with adding AMD support. -Marco Am Fr., 30. Nov. 2018, 01:22 hat Hao Jin <[email protected]> geschrieben: > f16c is also an instruction set supported by both brands' recent CPUs just > like x86, AVX, SSE etc., and any difference in behaviors (quite impossible > to happen or it will be a major defect) would most likely be caused by the > underlying hardware implementation, so still, adding AMD instances is not > adding much value here. > Hao > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:03 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 > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
