Thanks, Barry and Satish, It makes sense.
Fande, On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Barry Smith <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > On Apr 25, 2017, at 5:08 PM, Kong, Fande <fande.k...@inl.gov> wrote: > > > > Thanks, Satish, > > > > One more question: will petsc complain different versions of other > implementations such as intel MPI and IBM MPI? For example, configure with > a version of intel MPI, and compile with another version of intel MPI. Do > we have error messages on this? > > The compile time checking is in include/petscsys.h so you can easily > see what we do do. As Satish says we can try to add more cases one at a > time if we know unique macros used in particular mpi.h but with many cases > the code will become messy unless there is a pattern we can organize around. > > > > > > > > Fande, > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Satish Balay <ba...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > Added this patch to balay/add-mvapich-version-check > > > > Satish > > > > On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Satish Balay wrote: > > > > > You can try the attached [untested] patch. It replicates the > > > MPICH_NUMVERSION code and replaces it with MVAPICH2_NUMVERSION > > > > > > Satish > > > > > > On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Kong, Fande wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Barry Smith <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The error message is generated based on the macro > MPICH_NUMVERSION > > > > > contained in the mpi.h file. > > > > > > > > > > Apparently MVAPICH also provides this macro, hence PETSc has no > way to > > > > > know that it is not MPICH. > > > > > > > > > > If you can locate in the MVAPICH mpi.h include files macros related > > > > > explicitly to MVAPICH then we could possibly use that macro to > provide a > > > > > more specific error message. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is also a macro: MVAPICH2_NUMVERSION in mpi.h. We might use it > to > > > > have a right message. > > > > > > > > Looks possible for me. > > > > > > > > Fande, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:35 PM, Kong, Fande <fande.k...@inl.gov> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > We configured PETSc with a version of MVAPICH, and complied with > another > > > > > version of MVAPICH. Got the error messages: > > > > > > > > > > > > error "PETSc was configured with one MPICH mpi.h version but now > appears > > > > > to be compiling using a different MPICH mpi.h version" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why we could not say something about "MVAPICH" (not "MPICH")? > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we just simply consider all MPI implementations (MVAPICH, > maybe Intel > > > > > MPI, IBM mpi?) based on MPICH as "MPICH"? > > > > > > > > > > > > Fande, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >