On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Karl Rupp <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > I like the idea of having separate VECCUDA and VECVIENNACL, because it is >> possible to implement VECCUDA without dependence on a C++ compiler (only >> the CUDA compiler). >> > > I don't understand this part. NVCC also requires a C++ host compiler and > is fairly picky about the supported compilers. > > > If you want, we can prepare a rough initial implementation of VECCUDA in >> the next days, and we can later discuss what to keep/discard. >> > > Any contributions are welcome :-) > > > Karl: regarding the time constraints, our idea is to present something at >> a conference this summer, and deadlines are approaching. >> > > Ok, this is on fairly short notice considering the changes required. I > recommend to start with copying the CUSP sources and migrate it over to > VECCUDA by replacing any use of cusp::array1d to a raw CUDA handle. > Operations from CUSP should be replaced by CUBLAS calls. > > It's hard to imagine any performance benefit from this unless CUSP sucks. What am I missing? Jeff > Best regards, > Karli > > > > >>>>> If there is interest we can help in adding this stuff. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What are your time constraints? >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Karli >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Dominic Meiser >>> Tech-X Corporation - 5621 Arapahoe Avenue - Boulder, CO 80303 >>> >> >> > -- Jeff Hammond [email protected] http://jeffhammond.github.io/
