eliminating a cause of my recent rant and argument with Matt

[Barry Smith]

    It should be pay off to be consistent :-(. I have see a --have in  
there :-)

    Barry

On Dec 15, 2009, at 3:30 PM, Satish Balay wrote:

> Wrt batch mode, the relavent PETSc configure flags are:
>
>  '--with-batch=1',
>  '--with-mpi-shared=0',
>  '--with-memcmp-ok',
>  '--sizeof_char=1',
>  '--sizeof_void_p=4',
>  '--sizeof_short=2',
>  '--sizeof_int=4',
>  '--sizeof_long=4',
>  '--sizeof_size_t=4',
>  '--sizeof_long_long=8',
>  '--sizeof_float=4',
>  '--sizeof_double=8',
>  '--bits_per_byte=8',
>  '--sizeof_MPI_Comm=4',
>  '--sizeof_MPI_Fint=4',
>  '--have-mpi-long-double=1',
>
>
> wrt autoconf - I think these [sizeof stuff] are just shell
> variables. The last time I tried doing something equivalnet to
> --with-batch - I just set these variables on the command line.
>
> ./configure ac_cv_sizeof_long_int=8 ac_cv_sizeof_int=4
>
> etc.. So perhaps the current sizeof_char type options already mimic
> autoconf. But if we are using --known-sizeofint=8 type flags - thats
> also fine.
>
> The other odd flags are --with-memcmp-ok and --have-mpi-long-double=1
>
> Satish
>
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Barry Smith wrote:
>
>>
>>  I think a root of the miscommunication between Matt and I with  
>> regard to
>> --with-mpi-shared is that --with is used for TWO different reasons
>>
>> 1) --with-mpi=0 --with-x=1 etc are used to indicate we want to turn  
>> off/on a
>> package. In other words they are COMMANDS to BuildSystem
>>
>> 2) --with-mpi-shared=1, --with-sizeofint=8 tells BuildSystems FACTS  
>> that it
>> would normally be figured out by BuildSystem. Usually they are  
>> provided on the
>> command line because ./configure cannot run compiled programs (using
>> --with-batch for example).
>>
>>  I suggest we can the syntax for 2) and consistently use --known- 
>> mpi-shared
>> --known-sizeofint=8 etc everywhere in help and BuildSystem. It  
>> makes things
>> much clearer and can prevent loads of confusion.
>>
>>  This is likely not compatible with how autoconf does things. Do  
>> they have a
>> similar split and different names? Is there anything we can copy  
>> from their
>> approach? Do we care?
>>
>>
>>  What do others think?
>>
>>  Barry
>>
>