On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > I'd like to add a MPI_Comm as the first argument to PetscError() and > friends. > > In this way, if the same error is known over all the communicator ranks > it can print just one nice error message and stack instead of spewing out > many of the same messages all over the place. > > Does anyone object to this? > I am just worried that it will introduce deadlocks. If an error occurs on only one process and not another (like a NaN), but we use the entire communicator, we can get deadlock on the error message which will be very confusing. Is there a nice MPI way of checking whether everyone is present, and if not then just use the current method? Matt > It does mean for each SETERRQXXX() we call we need to select the correct > comm that is passed in. I will do all that, worst case just use > MPI_COMM_SELF for some and get the same effect as today. > > Barry > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20100507/aa3a833f/attachment.html>
