[petsc-dev] (no subject)

[Jed Brown]

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>  No, as I said in my previous email, it would be in
> petsc-private/petscconfhypre.h
>
>    When I wrote petsconfPACKAGE.h I meant this in the sense of
> PETSc/packages/*.py NOT in the sense of sys, ksp, vec, etc.  so there would
> be a petsconfhypre.py petscconfml.py petscconfsuperlu.py etc etc etc
>

Ah, okay.


> Yes there would also be a petscconfsys.h for things needed in the the sys
> directory (just so they are not included in snes, ts, etc.
>

Just splitting petscconfsys.h and petscconfpackages.h might be enough
(leaving petscconfbase.h or whatever to contain things like
PETSC_USE_DEBUG) would remove dependencies from most source files (that
care about neither packages nor sys).

If we did this, we should at least put a comment /* #undef
PETSC_HAVE_PACKAGE */ for those missing packages, so that we can easily
grep to see which header the macro would be defined in.


>   No, I am not strongly advocating making this change. Just suggesting it
> as a natural possibility related to the other recent changes
>

Yeah, I'm not convinced it's worth it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130216/6f870ae4/attachment.html>