3 ms·
It's better to think of this as a more friendly (i.e. open source development model) first party compute stack than some kind of pan-vendor standard. For exampl
by BadInformatics 6y ago
It's better to think of this as a more friendly (i.e. open source development model) first party compute stack than some kind of pan-vendor standard. For example, anyone using MKL is now nominally using oneAPI libraries. They also went to the trouble of implementing/pushing existing standards instead of baking their own thing: SPIR-V for the IR format, SYCL for the high level programming interface, an OpenCL 3 implementation (AIUI they have the most complete implementation of 2.x and 3), etc.
- dyingkneepad 6y agoSo "Open Source development model" (developing in the open) is not the same thing as "Open Source Code" (developing in closed doors, then throwing code to the other side of the wall once in a while). Intel has a history of doing both depending on the project and internal groups involved, where only really the Open Development projects are actually successful and long-term. OneAPI uses a lot of components and I am not entirely sure they all follow the Open Development model. There's a lot of Open Source stuff out there that you basically can't contribute to: your contributions are ignored because source code is open but development isn't. Does anybody here know about how this is done for the OneAPI-related projects?
- BadInformatics 6y agoMy sense is that they're somewhat better than, say, AMD at keeping development work in the open instead of just throwing code over the wall. Hence the choice of "development model" instead of just "FOSS". It's a low bar though, IIRC a lot of ROCm is just periodic code dumps with no visible PR strategy.