4 ms·

I did report my test results on the first one. :) The second I didn't say it's any of llama.cpp's "fault", but it is _related_ to llama.cpp since it's being sh

by imrehg 2mo ago

I did report my test results on the first one. :) The second I didn't say it's any of llama.cpp's "fault", but it is _related_ to llama.cpp since it's being shipped in another system, aye? Can't stick to the old hash either, because older version have different bugs. E.g. on older versions the same Qwen3.6 model reliably fails to call specific tools due to template issues, while just having the newer llama.cpp version has that fixed. So different versions - different bugs, rather than no bugs. Why the beating you are trying to gimme, mate? :)

etdznots 2mo ago
In some cases it may be that llama.cpp causes a bug or lack of functionality downstream but lack of ROCM support appears to be entirely LM Studio’s doing and unrelated to llama.cpp Sorry if I was too harsh, it’s just that my perception watching the repo has been that the llama.cpp devs are by far the most cautious and slow moving of all the inference implementations, so I found your perspective a bit surprising, I do think that the desire for stable software that never break, and software that supports the latest models and devices/device API’s are conflicting, nothing will do both, and I think that llama.cpp devs do a good job of balancing between shipping features and not breaking users.