issue_comments: 656627686
This data as json
| html_url | issue_url | id | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at | author_association | body | reactions | performed_via_github_app | issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/3232#issuecomment-656627686 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3232 | 656627686 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY1NjYyNzY4Ng== | 1610850 | 2020-07-10T11:30:36Z | 2020-07-10T11:30:36Z | CONTRIBUTOR | @fjanoos I'm afraid I don't. In RAPIDS we support cupy as our GPU array implementation. So this request has come from the desire to make xarray compatible with the RAPIDS suite of tools. We commonly see folks using cupy to switch straight over to a tool like pytorch using DLPack. https://docs-cupy.chainer.org/en/stable/reference/interoperability.html#dlpack But I don't really see #4212 as an effort to make cupy the GPU backend for xarray. I see it as adding support for another backend to xarray. The more the merrier! |
{
"total_count": 3,
"+1": 3,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
} |
482543307 |