On 1/18/23 15:03, Étienne Mollier wrote:
2. The symbol tracking needs to be reviewed by somebody more experienced
than me. I think that anything in the rocrand::detail or
rocrand_host::detail namespace should be marked optional, as those symbols
are not intended for use by library users.
Hi Cory,
Cordell Bloor, on 2023-01-18:
> I've updated the rocrand package sources on Salsa to rocrand 5.3.3 and
> transformed it into a MUT package. I've confirmed that the resulting library
> works correctly using it to configure rocfft 5.4.2 (which was how I
> discovered this bug originally).
Hi Étienne,
I've updated the rocrand package sources on Salsa to rocrand 5.3.3 and
transformed it into a MUT package. I've confirmed that the resulting
library works correctly using it to configure rocfft 5.4.2 (which was
how I discovered this bug originally).
rocrand 5.3.3-1 just needs
Thanks for taking a look at this, Étienne.
On 1/15/23 11:16, Étienne Mollier wrote:
Not sure it will help, but I suppose I could first bump the
rocrand package up to 5.2.3 to be consistent with the build
chain. It should still be easy to do while we're not in the
next stage of the freeze on
Hi Cordell,
Not sure it will help, but I suppose I could first bump the
rocrand package up to 5.2.3 to be consistent with the build
chain. It should still be easy to do while we're not in the
next stage of the freeze on February 12th.
Cordell Bloor, on 2023-01-15:
> The rocRAND and hipRAND
Package: librocrand-dev
Version: 5.0.0-2
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: c...@slerp.xyz
Dear Maintainer,
The CMake integration for the librocrand-dev package appears to be
broken. A call to find_package(rocrand) will fail with an error like:
CMake Error at
6 matches
Mail list logo
