Re: [petsc-users] misleading "mpich" messages

[Satish Balay]

I've updated balay/add-mvapich-version-check to also check IMPI version.

Satish

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Kong, Fande wrote:

> Thanks, Barry and Satish,
> 
> It makes sense.
> 
> Fande,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Barry Smith  wrote:
> 
> >
> > > On Apr 25, 2017, at 5:08 PM, Kong, Fande  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  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 
> > 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 
> > 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,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 

Re: [petsc-users] misleading "mpich" messages

[Kong, Fande]

Thanks, Barry and Satish,

It makes sense.

Fande,

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Barry Smith  wrote:

>
> > On Apr 25, 2017, at 5:08 PM, Kong, Fande  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  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 
> 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 
> 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,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [petsc-users] misleading "mpich" messages

[Barry Smith]

> On Apr 25, 2017, at 5:08 PM, Kong, Fande  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  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  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  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,
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 

Re: [petsc-users] misleading "mpich" messages

[Satish Balay]

Nope - this error check is not complete - i.e does not cover all MPI
impls. Is that possible - or desirable? I don't know.

Currently it does it for MPICH and openMPI. [and the MPICH check
should cover all all derivatives that are likely to use
MPICH_NUMVERSION - eventhough they will be tagged as MPICH in the
error message - as you've noticed]

So my patch tries to separate out mvapich check from mpich check.

Perhaps there is a better way to check all MPICH derivatives [that
have both MPICH_NUMVERSION and pkg_NUMVERSION] without duplicating
code all over the place..

Satish

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Kong, Fande 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?
> 
> Fande,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Satish Balay  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 
> > 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 
> > 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,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 

Re: [petsc-users] misleading "mpich" messages

[Kong, Fande]

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?

Fande,

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Satish Balay  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 
> 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 
> 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,
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Re: [petsc-users] misleading "mpich" messages

[Satish Balay]

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  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  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,
> > >
> > >
> > 
> 

Re: [petsc-users] misleading "mpich" messages

[Satish Balay]

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  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  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,
> >
> >
> 
diff --git a/config/BuildSystem/config/packages/MPI.py 
b/config/BuildSystem/config/packages/MPI.py
index f016a019eb..daed0d3f69 100644
--- a/config/BuildSystem/config/packages/MPI.py
+++ b/config/BuildSystem/config/packages/MPI.py
@@ -425,14 +425,22 @@ class Configure(config.package.Package):
 return
 
   def checkMPICHorOpenMPI(self):
-'''Determine if MPICH_NUMVERSION or OMPI_MAJOR_VERSION exist in mpi.h
+'''Determine if MVAPICH2_NUMVERSION, MPICH_NUMVERSION or 
OMPI_MAJOR_VERSION exist in mpi.h
Used for consistency checking of MPI installation at compile time'''
 import re
+mvapich2_test = '#include \nint mpich_ver = MVAPICH2_NUMVERSION;\n'
 mpich_test = '#include \nint mpich_ver = MPICH_NUMVERSION;\n'
 openmpi_test = '#include \nint ompi_major = 
OMPI_MAJOR_VERSION;\nint ompi_minor = OMPI_MINOR_VERSION;\nint ompi_release = 
OMPI_RELEASE_VERSION;\n'
 oldFlags = self.compilers.CPPFLAGS
 self.compilers.CPPFLAGS += ' '+self.headers.toString(self.include)
-if self.checkCompile(mpich_test):
+if self.checkCompile(mvapich2_test):
+  buf = self.outputPreprocess(mvapich2_test)
+  try:
+mvapich2_numversion = re.compile('\nint mvapich2_ver = *([0-9]*) 
*;').search(buf).group(1)
+self.addDefine('HAVE_MVAPICH2_NUMVERSION',mvapich2_numversion)
+  except:
+self.logPrint('Unable to parse MVAPICH2 version from header. Probably 
a buggy preprocessor')
+elif self.checkCompile(mpich_test):
   buf = self.outputPreprocess(mpich_test)
   try:
 mpich_numversion = re.compile('\nint mpich_ver = *([0-9]*) 
*;').search(buf).group(1)
diff --git a/include/petscsys.h b/include/petscsys.h
index 1ece229001..4a9446fdd4 100644
--- a/include/petscsys.h
+++ b/include/petscsys.h
@@ -139,8 +139,14 @@ void 
assert_never_put_petsc_headers_inside_an_extern_c(int); void assert_never_p
 #  if !defined(__MPIUNI_H)
 #error "PETSc was configured with --with-mpi=0 but now appears to be 
compiling using a different mpi.h"
 #  endif
+#elif defined(PETSC_HAVE_MVAPICH2_NUMVERSION)
+#  if !defined(MVAPICH2_NUMVERSION)
+#error "PETSc was configured with MVAPICH2 but now appears to be compiling 
using a non-MVAPICH2 mpi.h"
+#  elif MVAPICH2_NUMVERSION != PETSC_HAVE_MVAPICH2_NUMVERSION
+#error "PETSc was configured with one MVAPICH2 mpi.h version but now 
appears to be compiling using a different MVAPICH2 mpi.h version"
+#  endif
 #elif defined(PETSC_HAVE_MPICH_NUMVERSION)
-#  if !defined(MPICH_NUMVERSION)
+#  if !defined(MPICH_NUMVERSION) || defined(MVAPICH2_NUMVERSION)
 #error "PETSc was configured with MPICH but now appears to be compiling 
using a non-MPICH mpi.h"
 #  elif MPICH_NUMVERSION != PETSC_HAVE_MPICH_NUMVERSION
 #error "PETSc was configured with one MPICH mpi.h version but now appears 
to be compiling using a different MPICH mpi.h version"

Re: [petsc-users] misleading "mpich" messages

[Kong, Fande]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Barry Smith  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  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,
>
>

Re: [petsc-users] misleading "mpich" messages

[Barry Smith]

   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. 

  Barry


> On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:35 PM, Kong, Fande  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,

[petsc-users] misleading "mpich" messages

[Kong, Fande]

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,