[Facets-devel] PETSC ERROR

[Matthew Knepley]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > > Barry/Matt,
> > >
> > > Should we make optfile in PetscIntialize(optfile) optional?
> >
> >
> > Why would the user give an argument for optfile, but not intend it to be
> > found?
>
> Normally command line options is the way to pass in optional flags to
> a petsc binary. In this application - command line options are not
> possible [due to python/other packages that control main] - hence an
> PetscIntialize("petscopt") is used to pass in equivalent optional
> flags.
>
>
> Also In this code - PETSc [solver] usage is optional. I guess there
> are 2 ways of implementing this.
>
> The first is to always call PetscInitialize()/Finalize() - but
> optionally use PETSc solvers. [in this case optfile should be
> optional]


I have no idea what you mean here. Why does optfile have to be an optional
argument?
That makes no sense at all. You provide an argument, but only want it used
sometimes?
DONT PROVIDE IT if it should not be used.

  Matt


>
> The other mode is to avoid PetscIntialize()/Finalize() - when
> non-petsc solvers are selected.  [but this means more complicated
> options check - before PetscIntialize()/MPI_Init() is called. The code
> currently tries to do this - ocassionaly errors such as this pop-up]
>
>
> I guess Ideally - the optional_flag should be exposed all the way to
> PetscInitialize() - so the user can make the choice if this opt-file
> is optional or required..
>
> Satish
>



-- 
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments
is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments
lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20090604/07daaa80/attachment.html>