brevilo

FYI: the CPU architecture reported by `/proc/cpuinfo` does *not* indicate the actual architecture, according to [this LKML thread](https://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/2203.0/06269.html). IOW, the `8` above does *not* refer to ARMv8 and should thus...

To make things even worse, we're seeing S24 devices which clearly have ARMv9.2-A cores in them, yet do *not* support their full instruction set. Looking at the CPU features [reveals](https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/AArch64-Options.html)...

Another related observation: I rebuilt the binary for ARMv8-A since this is the first ISA with AArch64 support and should thus be the lowest common denominator to fix (well, work...

> Probably, your vendor doesn't support exported namespaces at all? Is this a (device) vendor or OS question? I thought the namespace isolation stuff came with project treble (Android 8)...

FYI, I recognize your approach to deal with the namespace / private API crap as being [this one](https://fadeevab.com/accessing-system-private-api-through-namespace/) (see step 3 there). Are you aware of the changes in Android...

This is the vendors' fault anyway since there is a [solution](https://registry.khronos.org/OpenCL/sdk/3.0/docs/man/html/cl_khr_icd.html), that's even part of the [OpenCL CTS](https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/OpenCL-CTS/) for Android. They just would have to adopt it but apparently can't...

Can do next week. Won't that run into the same isolation problem when run in the terminal?

Ah, sorry. I understood that you asked about `clinfo` only. *That* shouldn't work.

> ``` > export LD_LIBRARY_PATH="/system/vendor/lib64" > ``` > > I'm not sure this is a portable solution Not strictly. But it's *the* common path on virtually all modern devices. A...

> If the goal is to simplify development (how much development is planned?) then maybe this repo can be forked into a Python 2 source repo That's the point. IMHO,...