[petsc-dev] [petsc-maint #67637] Re: [petsc-users] Scalability of AO ?

[Jed Brown]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 21:57, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> We originally started with multiple libraries because in the 1990's PETSc
> libraries were "BIG" and made live hard for some filesystems and linkers.
> Now libpetsc.a is not big, by modern standards of big so is there any reason
> at all to keep the option of having lots of libraries (that don't get tested
> properly)?
>

I still test that option, but only because I'm paranoid about developing
cycles in the dependencies between different packages within petsc. If there
was another way to perform this sanity check, I would be fully in favor of
getting rid of the option. I'm probably in favor of it regardless.

On my machine, an optimized C libpetsc.so is between 5 and 10 MB depending
on optimization flags. A debug C++ with Sieve is a bit over 100 MiB. That
100 MiB is significant on a low-memory platform, but on a low-memory
machine, you would expect to link statically and then you only need lots of
memory on the development machine.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20110321/1ac3baf6/attachment.html>