Bug#953116: [petsc-maint] 32 bit vs 64 bit PETSc

2020-05-23 Thread Satish Balay
On Sat, 23 May 2020, Junchao Zhang wrote: > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 1:49 AM Drew Parsons wrote: > > > On 2020-05-23 14:18, Jed Brown wrote: > > > Drew Parsons writes: > > > > > >> Hi, the Debian project is discussing whether we should start providing > > >> a > > >> 64 bit build of PETSc (which

Bug#953116: [petsc-maint] 32 bit vs 64 bit PETSc

2020-05-23 Thread Satish Balay
On Sat, 23 May 2020, Drew Parsons wrote: > On 2020-05-23 14:18, Jed Brown wrote: > > Drew Parsons writes: > > > >> Hi, the Debian project is discussing whether we should start providing a > >> 64 bit build of PETSc (which means we'd have to upgrade our entire > >> computational library stack, st

Bug#897006: [petsc-maint] Bug#897006: petsc FTBFS on mips: f951: out of memory

2018-05-02 Thread Satish Balay
On Tue, 1 May 2018, Drew Parsons wrote: > Looks like that does the trick. Running make in src/dm/f90-mod, it > successfully compiles and archives petscdmmod.o and petscdmplexmod.o > inside build-arch/lib/libpetsc.a Great! I've merged it to maint - so this change should be in petsc-3.9.2 BTW: the

Bug#897006: [petsc-maint] Bug#897006: petsc FTBFS on mips: f951: out of memory

2018-04-30 Thread Satish Balay
On Tue, 1 May 2018, Drew Parsons wrote: > Would it work to split petscdmmod.F into two pieces, e.g. one with > petscdmda and central petscdm and the other with petscdmplex? > > Naively the two separate object files would then need around 1GB, > allowing mpif90 -c to succeed. This assumes that l

Bug#897006: [petsc-maint] Bug#897006: petsc FTBFS on mips: f951: out of memory

2018-04-28 Thread Satish Balay
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, Matthew Knepley wrote: > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 5:58 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > mips and mipsel are the only architectures where we have only 2 GB > > address space for userspace, so when the compiler needs more than > > 2 GB of memory you are getting this error. > > > > On

Bug#897006: [petsc-maint] Bug#897006: petsc FTBFS on mips: f951: out of memory

2018-04-26 Thread Satish Balay
We've received a couple of similar reports on regular [amd64] builds on VMs. And increasing memory allocated to the VM alleviated the problem We don't know why gfortran is requiring so much memory to compile these module files. Satish On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Drew Parsons wrote: > Source: petsc > V

Bug#474461: [PETSC #17535] PETSc configuration failure: "Unable to determine sizeof_char"

2008-04-05 Thread Satish Balay
Adam, conffix.h is generated temporarily for this test [based on previous tests in configure]. After succesful completion of configure - these workarrounds are dumped into bmake/$PETSC_ARCH/petscfix.h You can run configure with --doCleanup=0. This option is supporsed to prevent deleting temporary

Bug#428007: [PETSC #16452] Trouble with configure recognizing superlu

2007-07-13 Thread Satish Balay
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > I'm trying to link PETSc with SuperLU in Debian (version 3.0-5), FYI: SuperLU has some blas code in it. To avoid these duplcaite symbols, we build SuperLU with the following command: make lib LAAUX="" SLASRC="" DLASRC="" CLASRC="" ZLASRC="" SCLAUX

Bug#428007: [PETSC #16452] Trouble with configure recognizing superlu

2007-07-13 Thread Satish Balay
Looks like the version of superlu distributed by debian is old. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that superlu does not change version numbers when updates are released. Currently we use Jan_5_2006 snapshot [which I think is the latest release] - with some portability patches. It has the fo

Bug#354139: [PETSC #14441] Configure segfaults on Debian/HPPA

2007-01-11 Thread Satish Balay
Adam, Can you try the latest patchlevel and see if it works? There was a change in the threads code on the petsc side - for a performance problem with threads. [but 150min is a bit too long..] Satish On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > Yes, it is reproducible with python2.4, as rece

Bug#354139: [PETSC #14441] Configure segfaults on Debian/HPPA

2006-02-23 Thread Satish Balay
I guess you could try the configure option '--useThreads=0' and see if it works. Satish On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > I see. Thanks for the new info! > > -Adam > > On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 13:45 -0600, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >