3 ms·

> Is ZLUDA a drop-in replacement for CUDA? Yes, but certain applications use CUDA in ways which make it incompatible with ZLUDA So no then.

jjallen 3y ago
yeah would probably be good to include where it doesn't work. 1% of the time? 10%?
- mattkrause 3y ago
  It's near the bottom: "What is the status of the project? This project is a Proof of Concept. About the only thing that works currently is Geekbench. It's amazingly buggy and incomplete. You should not rely on it for anything serious."
meepmorp 3y ago
50% of the time it works every time.
- catchnear4321 3y ago
  that’s not quite accurate. it works 100% of the time. until it does not.
glimshe 3y ago
It's a drop-in replacement in the sense that you don't need to modify your code. But it has limitations/incompatibilities. Contrast to something that isn't a drop-in replacement... That would require changes to the application.
- 01100011 3y ago
  This statement makes no sense. "It's compatible with CUDA as long as you don't use all the features of CUDA." So it's a drop in replacement for some subset of modern CUDA. I feel like most folks who are upvoting this don't program CUDA professionally or aren't very advanced in their usage of it.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    “Drop-in” = to the extent it works, it requires no app changes. “Complete” = it covers everything. It is drop-in, but not complete.
    - dahart 3y ago
      The issue being that in the original question “drop-in” implies complete, that’s what being a drop-in replacement actually means in other contexts. If it’s not complete, then it’s not really drop-in, even though I don’t necessarily disagree with your definition. You can be right, and parent can be right too, IMHO. The FAQ question is stated ambiguously and in misleadingly black and white terms, and the answer really does look kinda funny starting with the word “Yes” and then following that with “but… not exactly”. Wouldn’t it be better to say drop-in is the goal, and because it’s not complete, we’re not there yet?
  - glimshe 3y ago
    Does the statement make no sense or you simply don't like it? I can understand what it says, sounds like plain English to me. I think that what you're trying to say is that before claiming to be a "drop-in replacement", make sure that your supported feature set is representative enough of mainline CUDA development.

jjallen 3y ago

yeah would probably be good to include where it doesn't work. 1% of the time? 10%?

mattkrause 3y ago
It's near the bottom: "What is the status of the project? This project is a Proof of Concept. About the only thing that works currently is Geekbench. It's amazingly buggy and incomplete. You should not rely on it for anything serious."

meepmorp 3y ago

50% of the time it works every time.

catchnear4321 3y ago
that’s not quite accurate. it works 100% of the time. until it does not.

glimshe 3y ago

It's a drop-in replacement in the sense that you don't need to modify your code. But it has limitations/incompatibilities. Contrast to something that isn't a drop-in replacement... That would require changes to the application.

01100011 3y ago
This statement makes no sense. "It's compatible with CUDA as long as you don't use all the features of CUDA." So it's a drop in replacement for some subset of modern CUDA. I feel like most folks who are upvoting this don't program CUDA professionally or aren't very advanced in their usage of it.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  “Drop-in” = to the extent it works, it requires no app changes. “Complete” = it covers everything. It is drop-in, but not complete.
  - dahart 3y ago
    The issue being that in the original question “drop-in” implies complete, that’s what being a drop-in replacement actually means in other contexts. If it’s not complete, then it’s not really drop-in, even though I don’t necessarily disagree with your definition. You can be right, and parent can be right too, IMHO. The FAQ question is stated ambiguously and in misleadingly black and white terms, and the answer really does look kinda funny starting with the word “Yes” and then following that with “but… not exactly”. Wouldn’t it be better to say drop-in is the goal, and because it’s not complete, we’re not there yet?
- glimshe 3y ago
  Does the statement make no sense or you simply don't like it? I can understand what it says, sounds like plain English to me. I think that what you're trying to say is that before claiming to be a "drop-in replacement", make sure that your supported feature set is representative enough of mainline CUDA development.