Barry Smith <[email protected]> writes: >> On Nov 26, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Håkon Strandenes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> Is it really PETSc's taks to warn about this? PETSc should trust HDF5 to >> "just work" and HDF5 should actually print sensible warnings/error messages. >> Shouldn't it? > > Yes, but if we produce a nice error message it makes everyone's > lives easier, including ours because we don't have to constantly > answer emails about the same problem discovered by a new person > over and over again. Hence we do this kind of thing a lot.
The only concern is that the user might not exceed that depth, so why should they have to set an arbitrary and excessively big value? MPI_REQUEST_MAX and MPI_COMM_MAX also look like candidates for needing increases. Whoever is responsible for this perversion should be fired.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
