Subject: Re: [boost] [compute] review
From: Kyle Lutz (kyle.r.lutz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-28 20:58:08
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Gruenke,Matt <mgruenke_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Sebastian Schaetz
> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 7:26
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [compute] review
>> I urge you to not open this can of worms.
> I didn't mean to imply that it *needed* to have a backend for XYZ. I am merely *suggesting* backends such as a threadpool or possibly OpenMP. My point was about the design - that it should facilitate the addition of backends, in order to address both existing and future systems where OpenCL support is absent or inefficient.
> Again, the key point is that the design should accommodate different backends. Whether a given backend is developed depends on whether there's enough interest for someone to write and maintain it. And perhaps some backends will exist only as proprietary patches maintained in private repositories of users. The main contribution of Boost.Compute would then be the framework, interface, and high-level algorithms.
While I agree that this would be useful, and API like this isn't the
goal of Boost.Compute. I think there is room for a higher-level
library to provide a more abstract parallel interface which could
potentially use Boost.Compute in addition to other available parallel
APIs (e.g. OpenMP, TBB, CUDA, MPI, etc.). In fact this is very much
what the C++ parallelism TS is attempting to provide.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk