On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, Smith, Barry F. wrote:
> > this way the example/user code uses:
> > + call PetscFlush(6)
> > [i.e with the 'call' statement explicitly listed in example/user code]
> This is fine (except for possibly one user who would just need to change
> their code).
Well the test for flush()/flush_() was broken [I pushed a fix for
this]. So its unlikely there is any user of this code.