[petsc-users] misleading "mpich" messages

[Satish Balay]

Nope - this error check is not complete - i.e does not cover all MPI
impls. Is that possible - or desirable? I don't know.

Currently it does it for MPICH and openMPI. [and the MPICH check
should cover all all derivatives that are likely to use
MPICH_NUMVERSION - eventhough they will be tagged as MPICH in the
error message - as you've noticed]

So my patch tries to separate out mvapich check from mpich check.

Perhaps there is a better way to check all MPICH derivatives [that
have both MPICH_NUMVERSION and pkg_NUMVERSION] without duplicating
code all over the place..

Satish

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Kong, Fande wrote:

> Thanks, Satish,
> 
> One more question: will petsc complain different versions of other
> implementations such as intel MPI and IBM MPI? For example, configure with
> a version of intel MPI, and compile with another version of intel MPI. Do
> we have error messages on this?
> 
> Fande,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> 
> > Added this patch to balay/add-mvapich-version-check
> >
> > Satish
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Satish Balay wrote:
> >
> > > You can try the attached [untested] patch. It replicates the
> > > MPICH_NUMVERSION code and replaces it with MVAPICH2_NUMVERSION
> > >
> > > Satish
> > >
> > > On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Kong, Fande wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >    The error message is generated based on the macro MPICH_NUMVERSION
> > > > > contained in the mpi.h file.
> > > > >
> > > > > Apparently MVAPICH also provides this macro, hence PETSc has no way
> > to
> > > > > know that it is not MPICH.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can locate in the MVAPICH mpi.h include files macros related
> > > > > explicitly to MVAPICH then we could possibly use that macro to
> > provide a
> > > > > more specific error message.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is also a macro: MVAPICH2_NUMVERSION in mpi.h. We might use it to
> > > > have a right message.
> > > >
> > > > Looks possible for me.
> > > >
> > > > Fande,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >   Barry
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:35 PM, Kong, Fande <fande.kong at inl.gov>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We configured PETSc with a version of MVAPICH, and complied with
> > another
> > > > > version of MVAPICH.  Got the error messages:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > error "PETSc was configured with one MPICH mpi.h version but now
> > appears
> > > > > to be compiling using a different MPICH mpi.h version"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why we could not say something about "MVAPICH" (not "MPICH")?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do we just simply consider all MPI implementations (MVAPICH, maybe
> > Intel
> > > > > MPI, IBM mpi?) based on MPICH as "MPICH"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fande,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>