> the LLVM back-end was supposed to replace it anyway.

Is this still the case? I.e. why shut down the open amdvlk project then? They could just make it focused on Windows only.

▲

kimixa 5 days ago | parent [-]

The open source release of amdvlk has never been buildable for windows as all the required Microsoft integration stuff has to be stripped out before release.

So at best it'll be of limited utility for a reference, I can see why they might decide that's just not worth the engineering time of maintaining and verifying their cleaning-for-open-source-release process (as the MS stuff wasn't the only thing "stripped" from the internal source either).

I assume the llvm work will continue to be open, as it's used in other open stacks like rocm and mesa.

▲

shmerl 5 days ago | parent [-]

I see, but I still don't get why any of that had to be stripped, aren't they using public APIs? Nothing there has to be in any particularly way secret.

▲

kimixa 4 days ago | parent [-]

From what I remember a lot of the code provided by Microsoft was not publicly available or permissively licensed.

Though I think a lot of it might be considered "Legacy" - it still existed.

	▲	shmerl 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Huh, interesting. Very MS style of problem. Why can't they develop public OS interfaces for that? I.e. you don't need the full code for that, just interface libraries. Not having public interfaces in this day and age is simply dumb.