> My interest comes in my development of additional programs that would > utilize ViennaCL. I would like them to be platform independent so the > prospect of a header-only library is very exciting to me. I definitely > prefer the C++ template format to the C-functions so that is fine. The > less linking and the less shared objects to be created the easier the > program will be for future users to install and begin using the new > program (future users will likely not be heavy OpenCL or even C++ > programmers). In a perfect world, I would just like to include the > header for the respective function (OpenCL or CUDA) and compile the program.
I see - our imaginations of a 'perfect world' are pretty similar when it comes to computing. ;-) (Note that with ViennaCL you don't have to include different headers for the different compute backends yourself: You just #include "viennacl/vector.hpp" and you get all the operations in a backend-agnostic way.) > That said, I realize this scenario is very unlikely. However, if a user > has a NVIDIA GPU, they also would need to have the driver and SDK > installed to use it appropriately. So perhaps my next best hope would > be to just include the header for a given CUDA function and then just > link to the original CUDA shared library (which would/should already be > installed in a standard location on the given OS). > > What are your thoughts on this scenario? Currently you have to specify at compile time which backends should be available. That is, you have to explicitly enable OpenCL, CUDA, or OpenCL via the respective switches. One common way to do this is to e.g. pass "-DVIENNACL_WITH_OPENCL" to your compiler. While such a static selection at compile time is common practice in scientific computing, it doesn't follow the 'perfect world' idea: Depending on the enabled computing backends, different libraries (like libOpenCL.so or the CUDA runtime) need to be available at the client machine. This imposes limitations when deploying binaries, for example if you want to provide ready-to-run binaries for your application built on top of ViennaCL. A possible improvement for ViennaCL is to switch to a plugin architecture similar to web browsers: ViennaCL could then be shipped and run with a minimum set of dependency and dynamically load additional compute backends (OpenCL, CUDA, etc.) at runtime (either from a shared library on the file system, or just enable/disable internal backends). This could be even interactive through a plugin loader. Such a plugin system might be too 'radical' with respect to the way libraries are used for scientific computing, so I'm still hesitant whether this would be worth the effort for the future. Any input on this is of course appreciated ;-) Best regards, Karli > > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Karl Rupp <r...@iue.tuwien.ac.at > <mailto:r...@iue.tuwien.ac.at>> wrote: > > Hi Charles, > > On 05/26/2015 03:08 PM, Charles Determan wrote: > > Thank you Karli, > > The ViennaCL library does appear to be impressive and I am > excited to > begin using it. Just so I know I understand you clearly. Unless I > compile the libviennacl shared library (with dense linear algebra > focuse) and link against it I would need to use nvcc to compile a > program I write with viennacl with the intent to use the CUDA > backend. > > Am I understanding you correctly? > > > Yes, this is correct. > > Out of curiosity: Would you prefer to have all functionality > available via libviennacl (using C-functions rather than C++ > template stuff) instead? > > Best regards, > Karli > > > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Karl Rupp > <r...@iue.tuwien.ac.at <mailto:r...@iue.tuwien.ac.at> > <mailto:r...@iue.tuwien.ac.at <mailto:r...@iue.tuwien.ac.at>>> > wrote: > > Hi Charles, > > > > I am new to the viennacl library after going through > some of the > > documentation there was something I would like a bit of > clarification. > Could please confirm if the NVCC compiler is indeed > required to > use the > CUDA backend or just for the makefiles of the > examples? I ask > this as I > have compiled CUDA programs simply with g++ > previously. If viennacl > does require NVCC to use CUDA backend, could someone kindly > explain why > this is so? > > > ViennaCL is a C++ header-only library, which has several > implications: > a) you can just copy&paste the source tree and get going. No > configuration is needed, there's no shared library you need > to build > first. > b) ViennaCL can provide neat operator overloads using > expression > templates > c) each of your compilation units will see most (if not > all) of > ViennaCL's sources. If you enable the CUDA backend, your > compiler > will see all the kernels written in CUDA, hence it requires > you to > use NVCC. This not only includes the examples, but also your > applications. We do not ship PTX-code and use the CUDA > driver-API to > get around NVCC, as this is too much of a burden to maintain. > > If you don't want to use NVCC, you can still interface to > libviennacl, which compiles part of ViennaCL's > functionality into a > shared library. It is pretty much BLAS-like and focuses on > dense > linear algebra for now, so sparse linear algebra is not > covered yet. > Such an interface to a shared library is most likely how you've > called CUDA-functionality in the past. > > I hope this clarifies things. Please let me know if you > have further > questions. :-) > > Best regards, > Karli > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y _______________________________________________ ViennaCL-devel mailing list ViennaCL-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/viennacl-devel
