[petsc-dev] GAMG error with MKL

[Smith, Barry F.]

   The number of people who are using PETSc with HPF for well thought out reasons is the same size as the number of people using OpenMP with PETSc for well thought out reasons.

   That said, as you saw in a previous email, I have no problem with pull requests that provide some "OpenMP usage" in PETSc so long as it is reasonably well thought out and not intrusive (and hopefully has examples that document the benefit).

   Barry


> On Jul 5, 2018, at 10:31 PM, Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org> wrote:
> 
> "Smith, Barry F." <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> writes:
> 
>>     You could use your same argument to argue PETSc should do "something" to help people who have (rightly or wrongly) chosen to code their application in High Performance Fortran or any other similar inane parallel programming model.
> 
> 
> If a large fraction of existing and prospective users were doing that,
> we'd be thinking about whether they were gone forever or could be
> supported by PETSc.  Good libraries make minimal assumptions about the
> environment they are run in.  Threads may not provide any value to us,
> but users make decisions based on lots of concerns that may or may not
> include what is best for PETSc.