dungeon please stop wasting other's free time, and please stop pollute that thread with fallacies and lies. And please listen when people answers to you the answers you need. No one said you need me to read the answer they made to you.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Radeon's ROCm OpenCL Runtime Finally Open-Sourced
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Marc.2377 View Post1) Can ROCm OpenCL be made to work with older cards, even back to the Southern Islands family?
Going back to SI would require larger changes, essentially bypassing the current ROCm kernel/runtime interface and submitting work via kernel calls.
Originally posted by Marc.2377 View Post2) Is support for OpenCL v2.0+ in the works? 1.2 runtime is... less than ideal nowadays.Test signature
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by bridgman View PostAFAIK the current support is a hybrid of 1.2 and 2.0 - kernel language support is 2.0 while runtime feature set is 1.2. The current level of support was based on our understanding of what developers actually use / plan to use so I imagine any changes would be driven by that.
Btw, OpenCL 2.2 was finalized today.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by dungeonI knew you are total disrespectful, first response to me and like that... fuck you moron and your fucking shitty matrix
As stated, I didn't have to answer to your statements since others did. You polluted a thread up to 7 page to request me something others already did for you (it's a kind of harassment), and when I gave time to answer you, you just don't read the answer you asked for but said “I knew you are […]”, throwing insults in a row.
It's time for you to to look stupid and to apologize.Last edited by illwieckz; 16 May 2017, 01:41 PM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by ekondis View PostIt's a two way relationship. For instance, people wouldn't make/plan to use of C++ if all available compilers supported just C.Test signature
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by bridgman View Post
True... but we implemented OpenCL 2.0 across the board back in early 2015 and none of the other vendors did anything... so pretty much all of the real world apps ended up being stuck at 1.2 level. Other vendors are finally starting to work on 2.0 support so I expect this will change eventually.
Let's hope that will change.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by ekondis View PostRight. The hope was that the industry would follow the pioneer and not that the pioneer would step back to be aligned with the rest. Let's hope that will change.
That said, we didn't actually "step back" as much as "started from zero with a new low-level driver framework and haven't stepped all the way forward yet" since nobody seemed to be using the last few features.Test signature
Comment
-
Originally posted by bridgman View Post
(...)
Going back to SI would require larger changes, essentially bypassing the current ROCm kernel/runtime interface and submitting work via kernel calls.
(...)
Originally posted by bridgman View Post
True... but we implemented OpenCL 2.0 across the board back in early 2015 and none of the other vendors did anything... so pretty much all of the real world apps ended up being stuck at 1.2 level. Other vendors are finally starting to work on 2.0 support so I expect this will change eventually.
Comment
-
Libre is about fully understanding what is going on, so protection can be increased. If it's just all open source, I'd label it "false libre".
So how's the protection against viruses like https://www.extremetech.com/computin...tem-activities ? Can any (invected) software read and write the firmware blob?
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment