[petsc-users] PETSC_VERSION_LT not giving expected result

[Jed Brown]

Please always use "reply-all" so that your messages go to the list.
This is standard mailing list etiquette.  It is important to preserve
threading for people who find this discussion later and so that we do
not waste our time re-answering the same questions that have already
been answered in private side-conversations.  You'll likely get an
answer faster that way too.

Jim Fonseca <jefonseca at gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Jed,
> Thanks. Well, I was just going to paste the new directive functions into
> the petscversion.h we have for our current PETSc 3.2 builds. 

Okay, thanks for explaining.  This is now fixed in 'maint' and 'master'.

> Yes, I know you probably cringe when you read we are still using
> that. :) I wanted to use PETSC_VERSION_GE moving forward since that
> seemed a lot nicer than comparing the version numbers one by one (i.e
> 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, petsc-dev) I want to try the make the transition from
> 3.2 to 3.4 as smooth as possible since we run on a few systems and it
> will be difficult to update all our builds simultaneously (some are
> cluster modules, some use our own PETSc builds) and test them.

Yup, understood.  Depending on how your code includes PETSc headers, you
can do something like this:

#include <petscsnes.h> /* or whatever */

#if !defined(PETSC_VERSION_LT)
#define PETSC_VERSION_LT(MAJOR,MINOR,SUBMINOR)          \
  (PETSC_VERSION_RELEASE == 1 &&                        \
   (PETSC_VERSION_MAJOR < (MAJOR) ||                    \
    (PETSC_VERSION_MAJOR == (MAJOR) &&                  \
     (PETSC_VERSION_MINOR < (MINOR) ||                  \
      (PETSC_VERSION_MINOR == (MINOR) &&                \
       (PETSC_VERSION_SUBMINOR < (SUBMINOR)))))))
#endif

... other stuff for you application

>
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Yikes, that should be RELEASE==1. Looks like I totally botched this:
>>
>>
>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/commits/03354681f90b4c94467f09fd38f90b774d661d87
>>
>> Will fix when I have a keyboard.
>>
>> But how can you have this macro with 3.2?
>> On Jun 15, 2013 7:54 AM, "Jim Fonseca" <jefonseca at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> In http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/include/petscversion.h
>>> there is:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> #define PETSC_VERSION_LT(MAJOR,MINOR,SUBMINOR)          \
>>>   (PETSC_VERSION_RELEASE == 0 &&                        \
>>>    (PETSC_VERSION_MAJOR < (MAJOR) ||                    \
>>>     (PETSC_VERSION_MAJOR == (MAJOR) &&                  \
>>>      (PETSC_VERSION_MINOR < (MINOR) ||                  \
>>>       (PETSC_VERSION_MINOR == (MINOR) &&                \
>>>        (PETSC_VERSION_SUBMINOR < (SUBMINOR)))))))
>>>
>>>
>>> Won't this always be false for release versions?
>>>
>>> We're trying to move from 3.2 and the following is evaluating to true. (I've put the new additions to petscversion.h into that file in our older builds).
>>>
>>> #if PETSC_VERSION_GE(3,3,0)
>>>
>>> //we should not get here, but we do
>>>
>>>
>>> when petscversion.h has
>>>
>>> #define PETSC_VERSION_RELEASE    1
>>> #define PETSC_VERSION_MAJOR      3
>>> #define PETSC_VERSION_MINOR      2
>>> #define PETSC_VERSION_SUBMINOR   0
>>> #define PETSC_VERSION_PATCH      6
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Fonseca, PhD
>>> Research Scientist
>>> Network for Computational Nanotechnology
>>> Purdue University
>>> 765-496-6495
>>> www.jimfonseca.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> -- 
> Jim Fonseca, PhD
> Research Scientist
> Network for Computational Nanotechnology
> Purdue University
> 765-496-6495
> www.jimfonseca.com