[petsc-dev] now that we have -lpetsc should we also have #include "petsc.h"?

[Satish Balay]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:

> On 26 February 2010 15:22, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> > An't you proposing things should work for user with 'gcc usercode.c -lpetsc'?
> >
> 
> Yes, That's what I'm proposing.
> 
> > The way I understant the above - eventhough we create:
> > 'gcc -shared libpetsc.so -lpetscksp -lpetscmat -lpetscsys -lmpich -lblas'
> > one would have to use:
> > gcc usercode.c -lpetsc -lpetscksp -lpetscmat -lpetscsys -lmpich -lblas'?
> >
> > And if the user does only 'gcc usercode.c -lpetsc' - he would get unresolved symbol
> > errors.
> >
> 
> Yes, and there is my complain about this nonsense... because -lpetsc
> should silently load all the other petscxxx, though I accept that for
> MPI and BLAS the story is different.

Ah MLK does something like:
[petsc:mkl/lib/32] petsc> cat libmkl.so
GROUP (-lmkl_intel -lmkl_intel_thread -lmkl_core)

Perhaps this will work for your usage. However currently I don't see
the usefulness of this scheme when the user still has to do the
following - [and the difficult part is getting the c/fortran compiler
libraries] and PETSc makefile handles this

gcc usercode.c -lpetsc -lmpich -lblas -lc_compiler_lib -lfortran_compiler_lib

Satish