why not a single PETSc library

[Barry Smith]

On Jun 9, 2009, at 4:51 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov>  
> wrote:
>
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 4:37 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>
> I think its legitimate to only want some of our crap.
>
>   You only get what you use; if you only use KSP then only the KSP  
> and below stuff will be pulled into your program, so what is the  
> problem?
>
>   I've never used the bessel function, yet I still use sin() from  
> the math library without a problem.
>
> You still have to load the whole damn thing into memory first.

    What terrible, terrible, terrible linker needs to load the entire  
library into memory before selecting the part it needs? Any decent one  
would look at its index and read into memory just the parts it needs.  
Where are you? 1983?

    Barry

>
>   Matt
>
>
>    Barry
>
>
>
>  Matt
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov>  
> wrote:
>
>  In the old days we stored the compiled PETSc into a collection of  
> libraries to make linking faster.
>
>  Today, is there any reason not to just have all the compiled PETSc  
> code go in libpetsc.XXXX?
>
>  Barry
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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