Hello pyopencl users,
I have created a small project to explore declarative representations of OpenCL
command graphs. It is implemented in python and relies on pyopencl and can be
found here:
http://code.google.com/p/ocl-cgraph-tools/
I think that an alternative representation of a command graph can be useful in
many cases.
* Can give the ability to move command graphs between dynamic language
environments like PyOpenCL and real-time environments (which may be implemented
in a compiled language).
* One way to get more dynamic runtime behaviour for compiled OpenCL
applications.
* Generation of host API C-code from a command graph.
* Store traces of programs which are using the OpenCL API.
* Intermediate format for autotuning/profile based optimization tools.
* Visualization of command graphs.
The syntax I have invented here must of course be seen as experimental and is
deliberately low-level to match the API. It is not given that a universal
low-level syntax is the best way to represent problems, maybe each domain
rather could use its own more high-level kernel graph syntax. Numpy expressions
"compiled" to OpenCL would be an example of this.
I would be grateful for any feedback on this. Does such a mini-language has its
place? What would it take to make it useful?
Regards,
Jan Tore Korneliussen
[email protected] +47 952 13 672
Schweigaards gate 92
0656 Oslo
_______________________________________________
PyOpenCL mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.tiker.net/listinfo/pyopencl
