On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 8:41 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

"Smith, Barry F." <[email protected]> writes:

...

Yuck, I think a far better user API is that PetscOptionsInsertFile() be callable before PetscInitialize(). The problem is that people have shoveled so much post-PetscInitialize() code into PetscOptionsInsertFile() over the years that stripping it all out would be painful. Maybe get a simplier pre- 2005 version of the routine and strip out the post-PetscInitialize() material?

You want every rank to open the file independently? Or PetscOptionsInsertFile somehow caches the file contents without using PetscMalloc and broadcasts it after reaching PetscInitialize? That seems a bit crazy.

I am not for this "before PetcInitialize" strategy at all. However, I do think its far too fat. It initializes everything we can think of without giving the user and entry points in to customize it. That is compiler-level user disempowerment. I would rather see us rearchitect Init() so that you have better control over options, logging, CUDA, and all the other initializations hiding in there. Matt

...

Barry

...

On Apr 22, 2018, at 5:54 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

For users that read their own configuration files and/or choose PetscOptionsInsertFile after PetscInitialize, we don't have a good way to avoid overwriting PETSC_OPTIONS or command-line options. The user could manually find argv and the environment variable, but that's a poor abstraction. Should PetscOptionsInsertFile learn how to behave so as to add new entries to the options database, but not supersede any that already exist?

-- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>