On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 08:14:16 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 30 May 2017 at 17:33, Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d <
[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 05:39:52 UTC, Manu wrote:
How far are we from integration into LDC without using forked
compilers?
The future is now!
https://forum.dlang.org/thread/[email protected]
https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/commit/69ad69e872f53c1
4c101e2c029c4757c4073f487
is the final commit from the stuff I've done prior to dconf.
Awesome stuff! That was fast :)
You're right, I'm using kernel<<<...>>>, and it's very
convenient.
Yep, thats (one of the reasons) why CUDA is more successful than
OpenCL and therefore one of the more powerful draws for those
poor sods using OpenCL.
I looked briefly and realised that I had a lot of work to get
running (as
you describe), so I stuck with my current setup for the moment
:(
I figured, I'll get you using it eventually.
Is a <<<...>>> equivalent going to be possible in D, with
kernel object fragments built into the binary together with the
CPU code?
As I explained in my dconf presentation: the idea is to have
Queue q = ... ; // the equivalent of a CUDA stream
q.enqueue!kernel(sizes)(kernel_arguments);
where q.enqueue returns a callable that you then call with the
arguments. It was modelled directly after CUDAs <<<...>>>
as for embedding in the binary a post build step that does
ubyte[] ptx_code = import("kernels_cuda620_64.ptx");
should be doable as should invoking ptxas and doing the same.
Then proving a consistent naming convention is used the code can
do its magic.
Or the files could just be read from disk.
I'm definitely looking forward to action in this space, and the
wiki to come online :)
Yeah once my thesis is done thing should start moving. Any input
with your expertise with CUDA will be much appriciated.
