> On Feb 14, 2021, at 12:13 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Barry Smith <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> This is a reasonable message to print on the screen, but I don’t think this
>>> is a reasonable flag to impose by default.
>>> You are basically asking all package managers to add a new flag
>>> (-march=generic) which was previously not needed.
>>
>> This is a tough constraint, package managers should not have to do anything
>> to get portability but users get great performance without needing to be
>> sophisticated. Seems to put the burden on the unsophisticated folks (all
>> users) and not on the sophisticated folks (packages).
>
> The sophisticated folks are us, the upstream developers who know what needs
> to be optimized for specific hardware (src/mat/impls/) and what does not
> (most of the rest of PETSc). We've been typical self-centered scientific
> software developers who just assume people who care about performance will
> build a custom library for each machine they run on.
I'm still bit confused. We need to build fat binaries otherwise the stuff in
src/mat/impls/ will either be not portable or will be generic and potentially
slower, right? Are you saying it is not worth building fat binaries for most of
the source? So we mark either by directory or file where we want fat binaries
built?
