Bah, nevermind. That was evidently a bug in GDB (debugging intel-compiled executable). The argument is non-null in idbc.
John On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 1:01 PM, John Fettig <john.fettig at gmail.com> wrote: > As a follow-up, if I break at the call to metis inside mumps > (metis_nodend_), the argument adjncy=0x0. I guess I'll be emailing the > mumps list about this. > > Thanks, > John > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 12:48 PM, John Fettig <john.fettig at gmail.com>wrote: > >> When I run MUMPS in parallel with parmetis ordering (icntl(28)=2, >> icntl(29)=2), everything seems to work fine. However, if I try to run it >> serially it reverts back to metis ordering and seems to get caught in some >> kind of infinite recursion. I've run it through valgrind and attached the >> output. Also I attached it to a debugger and the stack is enormous when it >> hangs, something like 10,000 frames deep. You can sort of see that from >> the valgrind output towards the end. >> >> My question is: who do you suspect to be at fault here? Is it a bug in >> MUMPS, metis, or PETSc? My suspicion is MUMPS. This is with the >> PETSc-automatically compiled MUMPS, metis, and parmetis, retrieved today. >> >> Thanks, >> John >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120220/a5d6598a/attachment.html>
