why not a single PETSc library

[Matthew Knepley]

Also, I am not sure I buy the link time argument. Since your linker is
inspecting things
and only taking what it needs, shouldn't the search time be much reduced in
smaller
libraries?

  Matt

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would ask: why is anything ever split up? Why not just munge everything
> in the
> entire Linux distribution into one big fat library?
>
>   Matt
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Jed Brown <jed at 59a2.org> wrote:
>
>> Barry Smith 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?
>>
>> With shared libs, you always get the whole thing.  Of course, the unused
>> part may only be mapped into virtual memory (thus never physically
>> present).  I suspect it's fairly rare to use less than Mat or KSP at
>> which point the presence of SNES/TS/DM is minimal overhead.  A single
>> lib is certainly easier to find with configure scripts.
>>
>> Jed
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20090609/eb2a32ea/attachment.html>