[petsc-dev] ugliness due to missing lapack routines

[Jed Brown]

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think we have to make a distinction as to what kind of code is in there.
> The proposed
> stub does nothing but raise an error, just as Fortran stubs do nothing but
> forward the call.
> To me, this should be kept out of petscblaslapack.h.
>

petscblaslapack.h needs to know not to redefine those function names. I'd
much rather have

#if defined(PETSC_MISSING_LAPACK_FOO)
... definition that raises an error
#else
... normal definition
#endif

than

#if !defined(PETSC_MISSING_LAPACK_FOO)
... normal definition
/* missing definition is generated */
#endif
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130206/143cadc1/attachment.html>