Oliver Schulz
Oliver Schulz
> Maybe instead of ComputingDevice we call it ComputeUnit? We are moving towards heterogeneous system in general and they might not be separated devices Sure, absolutely! Since this touches several...
@maleadt and @jpsamaroo do you have some initial feedback? And sorry for the state that the AMDGPU part of this is still in @jpsamaroo, I'll need a few pointers on...
> @maleadt: This seems sensible to me, but I don't understand why it belongs in Adapt.jl. It seemed to be a natural place, both semantically and dependency-wise. Semantically, adapt deals...
> some part of this could possibly go in GPUArrays, but having it in a more lightweight package instead is definitely appealing Yes, one important motivation here is to enable...
@vchuravy , @ChrisRackauckas , @tkf , @maleadt , @jpsamaroo thanks for all the inital feedback! I've updated this PR and tried to include your suggestions - since a lot has...
(Closed by accident.)
@ChrisRackauckas how do you think this should be integrated with `ArrayInterfaceCore: AbstractDevice, AbstractCPU`?
> This seems a lot like what we do in ArrayInterfaceCore. Is this already in active use somewhere? I think we should definitely merge this in one lightweight place (ArrayInterfaceCore...
> I think the loop vectorization stuff uses it a lot. Ok, so we can't just simply replace it - but I assume people will in general be in favor...
> But we have a pretty good system for deriving the device type Sure! Still, explicit support from the GPU packages would be nicer, right? And it's the only way...