[petsc-dev] petsc/petsc added -pc_use_amat option to PCSetFromOptions() (commit b9ee023)

[Karl Rupp]

Hi Antoine,

alright, in such case you better unsubscribe from petsc-dev, as these 
types of discussions are common here.
You got my email regarding the ViennaCL-interface in PETSc, didn't you?

Best regards,
Karli



On 03/22/2013 10:17 AM, Reymond, Antoine wrote:
> Sorry but I am not sure I need to be in all these communications.
>
> *Antoine Reymond*
>
> Sr. Strategic Alliances Manager
>
> AMD Professional Graphics
>
> O: +(1) 949 336 6244  M: +(1) 949 870 2200
>
> 52324A_FireProTechLogo_S_E s Visit us at: Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/AMDFirePro>| amd.com <http://www.fireprographics.com/>
>
> *From:*petsc-dev-bounces at mcs.anl.gov
> [mailto:petsc-dev-bounces at mcs.anl.gov] *On Behalf Of *Mark F. Adams
> *Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2013 8:15 AM
> *To:* For users of the development version of PETSc
> *Subject:* Re: [petsc-dev] petsc/petsc added -pc_use_amat option to
> PCSetFromOptions() (commit b9ee023)
>
> On Mar 21, 2013, at 10:07 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov
> <mailto:jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov
> <mailto:bsmith at mcs.anl.gov>> wrote:
>
>  > Why isn't this `PetscOptionsList()` so that it shows up in `-help`?
>
>     My mistake, I cut and pasted the PetscOptionsGetInt() from the line
> above and figure that it mustn't be in a PetscOptionsBegin{} phase. You
> can fix it if you like.
>
>
> Hmm, problem is deeper than that. If the method has no sub-solver,
> wouldn't we rather not be checking this option, so that it shows up as
> an unused option?
>
> I thought the primary mission of options_left was to catch spelling
> mistakes.
>
>
>
> (This is also useful if a PC logically ought to pay attention to this
> option, but isn't.) What about making PCSetUseAmat() use
> PetscTryMethod() and move the check of "-pc_use_amat" into each
> implementation?
>
> I agree with Barry that it should be high level and make it there for
> any PC to use if they want.
>
>
>
> Do we really want to leave the confusing option in place for all the PCs
> that don't have inner solvers?
>
> It just doesn't seem that bad to me.
>