Image improvements #391
Image improvements #391
Conversation
Not all PNGs are gone, as several don't seem to have corresponding drawio files. We might have to recreate these later. Some other changes were made, like replacing a table image with an actual markdown table.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The trademark text was previously two lines, now it's a single line that's cut off
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can composing_a_command_group.png in slide 6 also be converted?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The following images have corresponding drawio files and could also be updated:
devices-1.pngtopology-1.png
Is that possible in this PR?
For the other ones I think we don't have the source (unless I missed it):
gpu_cpu_memory.pngbuffer-hostmemory*.pngworkitem*.pngworkgroup*.pngndrange*.png
so we can leave them for another time. They also appear in other slide decks, e.g. "Managing Data", "Multiple Devices".
| @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ | |||
| </div> | |||
| <div class="container"> | |||
| <div class="col" data-markdown> | |||
|  | |||
|  | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This file is missing from this PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could usm_variants.png in slide 9 be made into a Markdown table?
| |--------|---------------------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------------| | ||
| | device | device global allocations | ❌ | ✓ | device | | ||
| | host | host allocations | ✓ | ✓ | host | | ||
| | shared | Allocations shared between both | ✓ | ✓ | migrates as required | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This table renders as cut off for me. Also the "X" character is not the same style as the checkmarks. It's larger, thicker and coloured. Maybe "✗" (U+2717) and "✓" (U+2713) would match?
|  | ||
| </div> | ||
| </section> | ||
| <!--Slide 12--> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this removed because CTAD makes it redundant? I would agree, but perhaps it's still worth just showing the template definition in the next slide? Just so it's clear what we're talking about when we say later: "The accessor class supports CTAD so it's not necessary to specify all of the template arguments".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
horizontal_vectorization.png was converted to horizontal_vectorization.svg but the path in slide 5 in this file was not updated and the image is not displayed
| <div class="col" data-markdown> | ||
|  | ||
| </div> | ||
| <div class="col" data-markdown> | ||
| <div data-markdown> | ||
| * SYCL allows you to write standard C++ | ||
| * SYCL 2020 is based on C++17 | ||
| * Unlike the other implementations shown on the left there are: | ||
| * No language extensions | ||
| * No pragmas | ||
| * No attributes |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The points are still true about the SYCL 2020 standard, aren't they? I think it's very catchy to put it like this and it's not mis-selling SYCL, even if it's not entirely true about some implementation-specific features. I would keep the image and the points.
Removed the Codeplay logo and SVG'd a bunch of the PNGs that were shipping previously.