On 1/29/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Ben Tay</b> <<a href="mailto:zonexo@gmail.com">zonexo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>Sorry I don't really understand. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>So is there any difference in optimization between the 2 libraries? Or is it just extensive additional "assert type"?</div></blockquote><div><br>As I pointed out the the previous mail, you should read the compiler documentation.
<br> <br> Matt<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div>Thank you.<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/30/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Barry Smith</b> <<a href="mailto:bsmith@mcs.anl.gov" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">bsmith@mcs.anl.gov</a>
> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>PETSc also does extensive additional "assert type" testing of input arguments
<br>to functions etc in the debug version.
<br><br> Barry<br><br><br>On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Matthew Knepley wrote:<br><br>> On 1/29/07, Ben Tay <<a href="mailto:zonexo@gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">zonexo@gmail.com
</a>> wrote:<br>> ><br>> > Hi,<br>> ><br>> > May I know what's the difference between the optimized and debugging
<br>> > version?<br>> ><br>> > Have the optimization flags such as -O3 been used in the compilcation of<br>> > the libraries for the optimized one? Whereas for the debugging version,<br>> > there is no optimization by the compiler?
<br>> ><br>><br>> It is just the difference in compiler flags. You would have to look at the<br>> compiler documentation.<br>><br>> If my program works fine in the debugging version, does it mean that I will
<br>> > not get errors in the optimized version?<br>> ><br>><br>> Most likely.<br>><br>> Matt<br>><br>> Thanks<br>> ><br>><br><br></blockquote></div><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>One trouble is that despite this system, anyone who reads journals widely<br>and critically is forced to realize that there are scarcely any bars to eventual<br>publication. There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too
<br>trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too<br>warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too<br>inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving,
<br>no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and<br>no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print. -- Drummond Rennie