Hello Andreas, On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Andreas Kloeckner <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh, sorry. I misunderstood. I'm actually not planning on doing what you > describe. What I'd like is to get towards a shared subset of > functionality that makes it less annoying than currently to write code > that talks to both packages.
This will be great too. I already have this in two projects in the form of context-wrapping class (containing a single stream, I do not need more) with functions for synchronization, memory allocation and copy, kernel compilation and execution plus some fields with device parameters. The main annoyance for me is push/pop mechanics of Cuda contexts (unlike CL context objects); but I am not really following Cuda API changes, so they may have done something about it in 4.0. By the way, do you already have some specific architecture in mind? In particular, is this layer going to be written in C++ or Python, and what functionality are you planning to include? Best regards, Bogdan _______________________________________________ PyOpenCL mailing list [email protected] http://lists.tiker.net/listinfo/pyopencl
