3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoDoes 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.