Hi,
Le 22/01/2017 à 06:46, Pan, Xiuli a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> Thank you for pay close attention to our latest release. We are very sorry
> that we are not very thoughtful about the package making things.
>
> We did not have a performance test for OCL2.0 so we did not set it as a
> default
eignet] Building beignet with OpenCL 2.0 support in distros
As for the "OpenCL 2.0 = worse performance" problem, the OpenCL spec actually
_requires_ 2.0 compilers to default to 1.2, and only enable
2.0 if explicitly asked to:
https://www.khronos.org/registry/OpenCL/specs/opencl-2.0.pdf p
As for the "OpenCL 2.0 = worse performance" problem, the OpenCL spec
actually _requires_ 2.0 compilers to default to 1.2, and only enable
2.0 if explicitly asked to:
https://www.khronos.org/registry/OpenCL/specs/opencl-2.0.pdf page 203
beignet currently defaults to 2.0 if it is enabled, but this
On Sat, 2017-01-21 at 17:39 +, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
> > I have a first attempt at "enable/disable 2.0 at run time" written,
> > but haven't yet tested it.
>
> It worked for me, and here it is; testing on other hardware (in
> particular, hardware that supports 2.0: the last 15 tests of
Le 21/01/2017 à 18:01, Rebecca N. Palmer a écrit :
> I have a first attempt at "enable/disable 2.0 at run time" written,
> but haven't yet tested it.
OK. I have both an Haswell and Skylake machine at hand if this can help
in testing.
> On 21/01/17 16:08, Bruno Pagani wrote:
>> Le 21/01/2017 à
> I have a first attempt at "enable/disable 2.0 at run time" written, but
> haven't yet tested it.
It worked for me, and here it is; testing on other hardware (in
particular, hardware that supports 2.0: the last 15 tests of the test
suite appear to be the ones that test that) would be
I have a first attempt at "enable/disable 2.0 at run time" written, but
haven't yet tested it.
On 21/01/17 16:08, Bruno Pagani wrote:
Le 21/01/2017 à 16:55, Rebecca N. Palmer a écrit :
On 21/01/17 15:40, Bruno Pagani wrote:
Le 21/01/2017 à 16:20, Rebecca N. Palmer a écrit :
is there any
Le 21/01/2017 à 16:55, Rebecca N. Palmer a écrit :
> On 21/01/17 15:40, Bruno Pagani wrote:
>> Le 21/01/2017 à 16:20, Rebecca N. Palmer a écrit :
>>
is there any downside in compiling with
OpenCL 2.0 support,
>>> Yes - on older (Ivybridge/Haswell - no emitUntypedReadA64Instruction)
>>>
On 21/01/17 15:40, Bruno Pagani wrote:
Le 21/01/2017 à 16:20, Rebecca N. Palmer a écrit :
is there any downside in compiling with
OpenCL 2.0 support,
Yes - on older (Ivybridge/Haswell - no emitUntypedReadA64Instruction)
hardware, a 2.0-enabled beignet won't work, at all.
That’s what I’ve
is there any downside in compiling with
OpenCL 2.0 support,
Yes - on older (Ivybridge/Haswell - no emitUntypedReadA64Instruction)
hardware, a 2.0-enabled beignet won't work, at all.
I see two possible approaches:
-Build two beignet packages, with and without 2.0 enabled, and make the
Hi there,
First post here, so first of all thanks for building Beignet and this
1.3 release!
I’m ArchLinux packager for beignet[0], and I’m trying to figure out
how/if I should package Beignet with OpenCL 2.0 support.
From what I understand, compiling with -DENABLE_OPENCL_20=1 just results
in
11 matches
Mail list logo
