[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2043e2a446be73a0933edafae925f1e5@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 23:34:09 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: cl_khr_byte_addressable_store
On 04/20/2012 09:59 PM, Milen Rangelov wrote:
> Well especially for RAR on AMD, I had several attempts around that idea and
> they ended much slower than the vectorized, bitwise magic version. But you
> should leave it just because 4xxx is not supported. I know sometimes it's
> hard and it could get VERY UGLY (my rar kernel is frightening). Nvidia may
> have no problems with it, but AMD is not the case..
Just to get things straight in my sore head: If I vectorize the lot and
use uchar4, I do not need byte_addressable_store, is that right?
magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
