4 ms·
You can implement your own cuda no problem: https://research.google.com/pubs/pub45226.html https://research.google.com/pubs/pub45226.html or write your own ass
by llukas 9y ago
You can implement your own cuda no problem: https://research.google.com/pubs/pub45226.html https://research.google.com/pubs/pub45226.html
or write your own assembly
https://github.com/NervanaSystems/maxas https://github.com/NervanaSystems/maxas
What you miss is there is a reason why OpenCL didn't get traction and lack of tools translating CUDA to OpenCL is not one of them. OpenCL 2.0+ is lot better than previous versions but it is too little to late.
- shmerl 9y ago> lack of tools translating CUDA to OpenCL is not one of them. And why not? If you can translate between them, it will help supporting legacy CUDA software. And new one can use new OpenCL to begin with.
- llukas 9y agoLegacy CUDA software would exist if OpenCL ecosystem was better. This is not the case. Code translation from CUDA to OpenCL is solution looking for a problem.
- shmerl 9y agoEcosystem depends on CUDA, it doens't care where it's translated to, no? So it would work with translation, until it's properly rewritten to use open APIs. It's a solution for lock-in that limits your hardware choices, which is a problem. You don't need to look for the problem, it's pretty obvious.