> On Feb 14, 2021, at 4:04 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Barry Smith <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> My feeling is 90+% of users don't care about portability, they want to get
>> fast performance on the machine they are compiling with (or a collection of
>> machines they have around).
>
> This is an exclusionary view of users. PETSc could and would be used in more
> places if it was easy to install, e.g., if "pip install petsc" was a 3-second
> binary install instead of several minutes that requires compilers.
You misunderstood my statement, or I phrased it poorly. For those building
PETSc themselves on their system using configure I don't think they care about
building a library that is portable, that is that they can copy to any machine
in the world and use. They want it to run fast on the machine(s) they are
building on. Hence I think for users who build it themselves configure should
lean for performance not portability.
Yes, having nice prebuilts (with as much performance as realistically
possible in a portable library) is desirable.
Barry
This is why I think configure should use native and those (making portable
packages) should have to indicate they want portability. I hate to see everyone
who builds PETSc themselves (which is many) get lousy performance just so
package developers don't need to indicate to PETSc's configure they want
portability. Thus a flag like --with-portable or something is desirable, where
it is off by default. If we get to the point where we have both the performance
and the portability with any build then, of course, we will not need such a
flag anymore. But one step at a time.
