[petsc-dev] reminder never use #include "mylocalinclude.h" in PETSc source

[Matthew Knepley]

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>
> On May 4, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Jed Brown wrote:
>
>  On Tue, 4 May 2010 11:37:14 -0500, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I see. Yes, it currently uses the makefile organization. This is the
>>> kind of metadata that Barry would like in a DB rather than in
>>> makefiles.
>>>
>>
>> It would be easy to convert between being spread out in the makefiles
>> and being held in some central location.  For instance, something like
>> builder.py, run at the end of configuration time, could instead of
>> building the project, write a single tupfile [1] for all of PETSc, and
>> then we could rejoice with fast correct builds, even after
>> reconfiguring.
>>
>> I think the metadata itself belongs with the implementations (more or
>> less where it is currently)
>>
>
>   Absolutely. It does not belong in some centralized place; it belongs with
> each chunk of code.
>
>   In fact, could/should we move it into the source files directly and thus
> not need a file with this meta-data at all. The python tool can just as
> easily get it out of the source files then the makefile. (Currently there is
> one copy of this data per directory, it is not per file; should we change it
> to per file, I'm not sure.)


Yes, definitely. I hate it in the makefiles.

   Matt


>
>
>   Barry
>
>
>  unless we are actually working with an
>> image-based system (which does not look likely in the near future).
>>
>> Jed
>>
>> [1] For those who not in the know: http://gittup.org/tup/make_vs_tup.html
>>
>
>


-- 
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/20100504/d8a11721/attachment.html>