Package Details: intel-opencl-sdk 2017_7.0.0.2568-2

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/intel-opencl-sdk.git (read-only)
Package Base: intel-opencl-sdk
Description: Intel SDK for OpenCL Applications
Upstream URL: https://software.intel.com/en-us/intel-opencl/download
Licenses: custom:intel
Submitter: big_gie
Maintainer: ava1ar
Last Packager: ava1ar
Votes: 85
Popularity: 0.000010
First Submitted: 2011-05-13 13:53
Last Updated: 2018-11-01 04:58

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... Next › Last »

misc commented on 2016-04-28 18:06

We could, but for laziness resp. compatibility – as it would require no code changes and have no negative effect on non-Intel-SDK users – I'd prefer pinging the Arch maintainer.

(Dunno about the beignet issue, but he could also just add these.)

edit: Also, shouldn't there be a file in /etc/ld.so.conf.d with /opt/intel/opencl-sdk/lib64 in it (resp. another for intel-opencl-runtime with /opt/intel/opencl-runtime/lib64)? At least the CUDA packages add those.

Either way, I get an instant sigsegv in cl::Context with the Intel runtime, great. Currently in contact with support.

kjslag commented on 2016-04-28 17:56

Could we keep Intel's headers in the /opt directory? Then if you want Intel's extensions, you can include the /opt headers in your code instead.

misc commented on 2016-04-28 17:49

Damn, I'd also very much prefer the unified opencl-headers solution (esp. as some are newer), but there's an issue with cl_ext.h: While Arch's version includes the 2.1 ones, it doesn't contain all of Intel's extensions.

(beignet suffers from a similar issue, its cl_d3d10.h, cl_d3d11.h, cl_dx9_media_sharing.h and cl_intel.h are missing entirely: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/beignet/tree/include/CL )

Dunno how to resolve this, maybe the Arch maintainer could add what's missing?
diff: http://pastebin.com/raw/cQU2XcAe (guess about top half can be ignored as it's Windows only)

kralyk commented on 2016-04-28 13:19

Ok, so the backend has been split off into another package, didn't know that, thanks.

As for the headers, they are defined by the OpenCL standard, so they shouldn't differ significantly. IMHO adding opencl-headers as a dependency should be fine.

ava1ar commented on 2016-04-28 02:46

Updated. Please take a look now.

pavanky commented on 2016-04-28 00:14

@ava1ar That would be greatly appreciated! I currently have to modify PKGBUILD manually to fix the issue. Looks like you are going to take care it!

ava1ar commented on 2016-04-27 18:10

Thanks, @kjslag!

OK, in next update (will be posted later today) I am going to make the package dependent on opencl-headers and also will not copy the headers in the intel-opencl-sdk. This should make it compatible with beignet package. Please let me know if there are any objections.

kjslag commented on 2016-04-27 18:06

The only difference between the headers is that opencl-headers are more up to date. They are certainly all compatible. The opencl-headers package exists so that packages like intel-opencl-sdk can add them as a depends, and this is what every other opencl sdk package does.

ava1ar commented on 2016-04-27 03:01

Anybody know if the headers, provided by opencl-headers, intel-opencl-sdk and beignet are same? (or compatible?)
If yes, I can just not include headers to the package and make if dependable of opencl-headers.

kjslag commented on 2016-04-27 02:49

Thanks ava1ar. Unfortunately this package now conflicts with beignet because both packages (incorrectly) provide opencl-headers. intel-opencl-sdk (and beignet) should instead depend onopencl-headers. See https://www.diffchecker.com/4n8cmmxp