Re: request for help: hypre 1.11.1

[Drew Parsons <dparsons@debian.org>]

On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 17:26 +0800, Drew Parsons wrote:
> I looked into upgrading hypre from 2.8.0b to 2.11.1.
...
> and tried to refresh debian/patches (which get shlibs etc
> recognised).
> 
> But in its current state the 2.11.1 build fails at parcsr_mv. It
> looks
> like par_csr_matop.o is trying to use hypre_ExchangeRAPData, which is
> defined in parcsr_ls not parcsr_mv.

I can build some debs by switching off the patches to split fgmres to a
separate sublibrary.  Actually I think the build failure
(par_csr_matop.o  trying to use hypre_ExchangeRAPData, which is
 defined in parcsr_ls not parcsr_mv.) was due to some part of
patches/shlibs-interlink.patch.  I can get a build by only keeping the
patch to src/lib/Makefile (with the fgmres patches deactivated)

I understand the motivation for the hypre patches was to reduce the
size of the shared libraries.  A standard upstream build creates
libHYPRE-2.11.1.so with size 4.8M.

The Debian patches reduce libHYPRE-2.11.1.so down to 5.8K, with the
bulk of the library split across the various sublibraries:
    5.8K libHYPRE-2.11.1.so
    15K libHYPRE_DistributedMatrix-2.11.1.so
    63K libHYPRE_DistributedMatrixPilutSolver-2.11.1.so
    228K libHYPRE_Euclid-2.11.1.so
    793K libHYPRE_FEI-2.11.1.so
    71K libHYPRE_IJ_mv-2.11.1.so
    100K libHYPRE_krylov-2.11.1.so
    6.1K libHYPRE_MatrixMatrix-2.11.1.so
    23K libHYPRE_multivector-2.11.1.so
    67K libHYPRE_ParaSails-2.11.1.so
    111K libHYPRE_parcsr_block_mv-2.11.1.so
    807K libHYPRE_parcsr_ls-2.11.1.so
    144K libHYPRE_parcsr_mv-2.11.1.so
    35K libHYPRE_seq_mv-2.11.1.so
    427K libHYPRE_sstruct_ls-2.11.1.so
    117K libHYPRE_sstruct_mv-2.11.1.so
    624K libHYPRE_struct_ls-2.11.1.so
    216K libHYPRE_struct_mv-2.11.1.so
    51K libHYPRE_utilities-2.11.1.so

Can anyone comment on the desirability of splitting libHYPRE into
pieces like this?  All the sublibraries need to be loaded anyway, since
they're linked in to libHYPRE-2.11.1.so.  Is there really a performance
gain in splitting the library?   It causes a maintenance headache.

Drew