[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABh=JRENyEqjCDo7iA4H0kFT4b+X=FLvhOfsY4mAeV4wd4NK1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:23:15 +0300
From: Milen Rangelov <gat3way@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: cl_khr_byte_addressable_store
No. accessing uchar4 arrays would generate compiler error if you're not
using the extension, eg __local uchar4 arr[4];arr[1]=(1,2,3,4) would not
compile without the extension. Otherwise I believe you can have __private
uchar4 non-array variables and access them. But for RAR kernel you'd have
to use an ucharN array anyway.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 12:34 AM, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.
