[petsc-dev] ugliness due to missing lapack routines

[Jed Brown]

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> > >   1) Get rid of all function-like CPP things
> >
> >     Right now we can get rid of any CPP macro functions that can be
> trivially converted to C functions. The ones we cannot get rid of are ones
> that take "types" or block sizes as arguments. (these are used as code
> generation macros; generating a chunk of C code for each type).
> >
> > We should work on eliminating those first. This is a good test of how
> usable the code generation would be.
>
>   The problem is that we cannot do the code generation properly until
> we've removed all the CPP code first. So it seems to me that these should
> be eliminated last (since they are vital to working PETSc). But I could be
> wrong, Karl?


Huh? There are still plenty of CPP macro functions that could be inline
functions. What are you going to do with stuff like PetscTryMethod and
PetscOptionsBegin? Those _seriously_ change the behavior of the code, in
ways that cannot be expressed in C (without just expanding the entire
macro, but that's just replacing CPP with our own replacement macro
language).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130207/1373dc29/attachment.html>