PetscSF has many PETSC_HAVE_MPI_REDUCE_LOCAL. It is disturbing. But consider the time gap between MPI-2.0 (1998) and MPI-2.2 (2009), it is better to keep it.
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:53 PM Jed Brown <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: "Zhang, Junchao" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> writes: > How about stuff in MPI-2.2 (approved in 2009), the last of MPI-2.x, e.g., > PETSC_HAVE_MPI_REDUCE_LOCAL? Currently we only require MPI-2.0, but I would not object to increasing to MPI-2.1 or 2.2 if such systems are sufficiently rare (almost nonexistent) in the wild. I'm not sure how great the benefits are. > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 2:51 PM Jed Brown via petsc-dev > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > wrote: > Lisandro Dalcin via petsc-dev > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > writes: > >> These two are definitely wrong, we need PETSC_HAVE_MPI_XXX instead. > > Thanks, we can delete both of these cpp guards. > >> include/petscsf.h:#if defined(MPI_REPLACE) > > MPI-2.0 > >> src/sys/objects/init.c:#if defined(PETSC_USE_64BIT_INDICES) || >> !defined(MPI_2INT) > > MPI-1.0
