[petsc-dev] ugliness due to missing lapack routines

[Matthew Knepley]

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>
> 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
>

You are right. All of petscblaslapack.h should be generated :)

   Matt

-- 
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/20130207/25b1fa8e/attachment.html>