Hi Satish,
Thanks to you and Jeff for taking a look at this. We will submit a bug report
to Intel.
Randy
> On Apr 11, 2018, at 2:40 AM, Satish Balay wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Jeff Hammond wrote:
>
>> Can you try on a non-KNL host? It's a bug either way but I want
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Bernardo Rocha <
bernardomartinsro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK Matthew, thanks a lot for your feedback.
>
> Reading the code for the first two faces I noted you used the standard
> numbering for the faces.
> face 0 (bottom) -> nodes 0 1 2 3
> face 1 (top) ->
Uhmmm. Indeed. Sorry for the mistake.
Just fixed my ordering before sending them to DMPlexCreateFromCellList and
it worked fine.
Thanks.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Bernardo Rocha <
>
Performance wise, I would suggest to use "-xAVX" instead of "-axcore-avx2".
Based on our experience with running PETSc on a variety of Xeon processors
(including KNL), using AVX2 yields comparable and sometimes worse performance
than using AVX. But if your machine supports AVX-512, it is
I see this error with "-xAVX" build aswell.
Satish
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Zhang, Hong wrote:
> Performance wise, I would suggest to use "-xAVX" instead of "-axcore-avx2".
> Based on our experience with running PETSc on a variety of Xeon processors
> (including KNL), using AVX2 yields comparable
Thanks Barry. I found petsc-3.6 and older versions did not have this
restriction.
Best,
Rongliang
On 04/12/2018 07:22 AM, Smith, Barry F. wrote:
Yes, PetscPrintf() and related functions have a maximum string length of
about 8000 characters.
Barry
On Apr 11, 2018, at 6:17 PM,
Yes, PetscPrintf() and related functions have a maximum string length of
about 8000 characters.
Barry
> On Apr 11, 2018, at 6:17 PM, Rongliang Chen wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
>
> When I tried to print a long string using PetscPrintf() I found that it
>