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;arr=(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.