On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:52, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> Curse it, these are all cases of MPI didn't do something right or some > MPI implementor got lazy and didn't include something they should have. > They should really start with MPI. Maybe MPILazyBastards_xxxx() it doesn't > seem right to name space any of them with PETSc!!!! MPImissing_, MPIFU_ > (for MPI fuck up). > MPIPetsc_xxx so it's at least clear who is providing the "fixed" version (and which package's configure it may depend on). MPIU_INT, for example, is intimately bound to the way PETSc was configured, so maybe it should be MPIPETSC_INT? > > > PetscMPI_Iallreduce(), Petsc_MPI_Iallreduce(), > > This is a clash between two naming conventions, the silly MPI one with _ > and the reasonable Petsc one without a million _. You know the one I like. > > Are you sure we shouldn't continue to use MPIU? We have squatters > rights to that prefix since we've used it for 18 years. It looks good and > makes clear what those functions are for. > It's true, but it would be a shame for some version of PETSc to become incompatible with some version of MPICH due to a symbol collision (though they use visibility on many platforms, so the symbol can be used within the library, but not visible outside). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120415/02afa82c/attachment.html>