On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Karl Rupp <rupp@iue.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
Hi,
I like the idea of having separate VECCUDA and VECVIENNACL, because it is possible to implement VECCUDA without dependence on a C++ compiler (only the CUDA compiler).
I don't understand this part. NVCC also requires a C++ host compiler and is fairly picky about the supported compilers.
If you want, we can prepare a rough initial implementation of VECCUDA in the next days, and we can later discuss what to keep/discard.
Any contributions are welcome :-)
Karl: regarding the time constraints, our idea is to present something at a conference this summer, and deadlines are approaching.
Ok, this is on fairly short notice considering the changes required. I recommend to start with copying the CUSP sources and migrate it over to VECCUDA by replacing any use of cusp::array1d to a raw CUDA handle. Operations from CUSP should be replaced by CUBLAS calls.
It's hard to imagine any performance benefit from this unless CUSP sucks. What am I missing?
Jeff
Best regards,
Karli
If there is interest we can help in adding this stuff.
What are your time constraints?
Best regards,
Karli
--
Dominic Meiser
Tech-X Corporation - 5621 Arapahoe Avenue - Boulder, CO 80303
--
Jeff Hammond
jeff.science@gmail.com
http://jeffhammond.github.io/