Not really useful for autotools - but we print the mpi.h used during build in make.log
Using mpi.h: # 1 "/home/petsc/soft/mpich-3.3b1/include/mpi.h" 1 I guess the same code [using a petsc makefile] - can be scripted and parsed to get the PATH to compare in autotools. However the current version check [below] is likely the best way. Our prior check was deemed too strict - for ex: when linux distros updated MPI packages with a bug fixed version [without API change] - our prior check flagged this as incompatible - so we had to change it. Satish On Thu, 27 Feb 2020, Jed Brown wrote: > If determining mpicc is sufficient, this will work > > pkg-config --var=ccompiler PETSc > > We also define > > $ grep NUMVERSION mpich-optg/include/petscconf.h > #define PETSC_HAVE_MPICH_NUMVERSION 30302300 > > or > > $ grep OMPI_ ompi-optg/include/petscconf.h > #define PETSC_HAVE_OMPI_MAJOR_VERSION 4 > #define PETSC_HAVE_OMPI_MINOR_VERSION 0 > #define PETSC_HAVE_OMPI_RELEASE_VERSION 2 > > which PETSc uses to raise a compile-time error if it believes you're > compiling PETSc code using an incompatible MPI. > > Note that some of this is hidden in the environment on Cray systems, for > example, where CC=cc regardless of what compiler you're actually using. > > Alexander Lindsay <[email protected]> writes: > > > What's the cleanest way to determine the MPI install used to build PETSc? > > We are configuring a an MPI-based C++ library with autotools that will > > eventually be used by libMesh, and we'd like to make sure that this library > > (as well as libMesh) uses the same MPI that PETSc used or at worst detect > > our own and then error/warn the user if its an MPI that differs from the > > one used to build PETc. It seems like the only path info that shows up is > > in MPICXX_SHOW, PETSC_EXTERNAL_LIB_BASIC, and PETSC_WITH_EXTERNAL_LIB (I'm > > looking in petscvariables). I'm willing to learn the m4/portable shell > > built-ins necessary to parse those variables and come out with an mpi-dir, > > but before doing that figured I'd ask here and see if I'm missing something > > easier. > > > > Alex >
