Vincent Danjean <[email protected]> writes: > Hi, > > Le 23/08/2012 14:56, Vincent Danjean a écrit : >> In my opinion, what is missing in the current spec are (at least): >> - a way to know the size of the structure we got from the ICD >> An easy way to do so can be to give this size (in bytes or in entries) >> as a long stored just before the current structure *and* advertize this >> by declaring an extension in the ICD. > > I was talking to quickly. > >> - a way for a program to know if a plate-form implements or not any >> function. The clGetExtensionFunctionAddressForPlatform might be the >> solution (but the previous information is required) >> => I will try to do it correctly for the next ocl-icd release >> adding some hardcoded information if needed. > > From the khronos spec: > The function clGetExtensionFunctionAddressForPlatform returns the > address of the extension function named by funcname for a given > platform. > [...] > clGetExtensionFunctionAddressForPlatform may not be queried for > core (non-extension) functions in OpenCL. > [and AMD ICD give NULL value for core-functions, indeed] > > So, this is not a good way to know if a deprecated or new function > is supported or not. And even if ocl-icd can answer correctly, it > would not be portable :-(
I've pinged Khronos about this: http://www.khronos.org/message_boards/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=5268 Let's see if we get a reply, otherwise I'll bug someone by direct email. Andreas _______________________________________________ PyOpenCL mailing list [email protected] http://lists.tiker.net/listinfo/pyopencl
