On Oct 17, 2012, at 3:35 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > On Oct 17, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > No. The problem is that Open MPI does not fix their critical bugs, they > > just downgrade them from "blocker" so they can make a release. It's not > > easy for them to fix because they need to refactor some lower level > > protocols. > > Ahh yes. It is nice to have a sophisticated bug tracking system; it makes > it easy to relabel bugs with a single click to avoid doing work. We should > add this to PETSc :-) > > At least there is a place I can refer people to the open tickets. A dead > thread on a mailing list is much worse evidence of a known bug. > > Good thing we have a ticket people can watch to get news of the work-around. > ;-) > > https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc-dev/issue/9/implement-petscsf-without-one-sided > > > BTW: Shouldn't you have configure detect this issue and turnoff the > building of SF or print appropriate error messages so we don't get these > confusing petsc-maint that only you can understand? > > We can't detect it without either (a) running MPI code or (b) blacklisting > Open MPI. Well if it always happens with OpenMPI then you should just turn off one-sided for Open MPI? Barry
