[petsc-dev] petsc/petsc added -pc_use_amat option to PCSetFromOptions() (commit b9ee023)

[Satish Balay]

Also if you don't want to be part of the mailing list [with public
discussion and public archives] you can send emails to
petsc-maint at mcs...

Satish

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013, Karl Rupp wrote:

> Hi Antoine,
> 
> alright, in such case you better unsubscribe from petsc-dev, as these types of
> discussions are common here.
> You got my email regarding the ViennaCL-interface in PETSc, didn't you?
> 
> Best regards,
> Karli
> 
> 
> 
> On 03/22/2013 10:17 AM, Reymond, Antoine wrote:
> > Sorry but I am not sure I need to be in all these communications.
> > 
> > *Antoine Reymond*
> > 
> > Sr. Strategic Alliances Manager
> > 
> > AMD Professional Graphics
> > 
> > O: +(1) 949 336 6244  M: +(1) 949 870 2200
> > 
> > 52324A_FireProTechLogo_S_E s Visit us at: Twitter
> > <https://twitter.com/AMDFirePro>| amd.com <http://www.fireprographics.com/>
> > 
> > *From:*petsc-dev-bounces at mcs.anl.gov
> > [mailto:petsc-dev-bounces at mcs.anl.gov] *On Behalf Of *Mark F. Adams
> > *Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2013 8:15 AM
> > *To:* For users of the development version of PETSc
> > *Subject:* Re: [petsc-dev] petsc/petsc added -pc_use_amat option to
> > PCSetFromOptions() (commit b9ee023)
> > 
> > On Mar 21, 2013, at 10:07 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov
> > <mailto:jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov>> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov
> > <mailto:bsmith at mcs.anl.gov>> wrote:
> > 
> >  > Why isn't this `PetscOptionsList()` so that it shows up in `-help`?
> > 
> >     My mistake, I cut and pasted the PetscOptionsGetInt() from the line
> > above and figure that it mustn't be in a PetscOptionsBegin{} phase. You
> > can fix it if you like.
> > 
> > 
> > Hmm, problem is deeper than that. If the method has no sub-solver,
> > wouldn't we rather not be checking this option, so that it shows up as
> > an unused option?
> > 
> > I thought the primary mission of options_left was to catch spelling
> > mistakes.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > (This is also useful if a PC logically ought to pay attention to this
> > option, but isn't.) What about making PCSetUseAmat() use
> > PetscTryMethod() and move the check of "-pc_use_amat" into each
> > implementation?
> > 
> > I agree with Barry that it should be high level and make it there for
> > any PC to use if they want.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Do we really want to leave the confusing option in place for all the PCs
> > that don't have inner solvers?
> > 
> > It just doesn't seem that bad to me.
> > 
> 
>