[petsc-dev] ugliness due to missing lapack routines

[Jed Brown]

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>    These are in the category of  those that CANNOT be trivially converted
> to C functions. They are the tough nuts to crack. We need to categorize
> them and see what makes sense to do with them.


Do you agree that the "new" version of those constructs will not be plain
C? Either you will be moving non-trivial logic from C to the preprocessor
itself (thus distributing logic between preprocessor implementation and
"normal" source files) or you will be adding some extra semantics to the
dialect of "C" that will be understood by the preprocessor?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130207/edd86122/attachment.html>