[petsc-dev] PetscIntialize docs

[Matthew Knepley]

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Mark F. Adams <mfadams at lbl.gov> wrote:

>
> On Sep 5, 2013, at 6:16 AM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Mark F. Adams <mfadams at lbl.gov> wrote:
>
>> In
>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/Sys/PetscInitialize.htmlI see:
>>
>> *file*- [optional] PETSc database file, also checks ~username/.petscrc
>> and .petscrc use NULL to not check for code specific file. Use
>> -skip_petscrc in the code specific file to skip the .petscrc files
>> I don't understand what "Use -skip_petscrc in the code specific file"
>> means.  In looking at the code it seems like this line should read
>> something like:
>>
>> … If you do not want to use a resource file, use NULL and
>> add -skip_petscrc to the command line.
>>
>
> Here is what it is trying to say. There are three files we can check:
>
>  1) ~username/.petscrc
>  2) cwd/.petscrc
>  3) "code specific file", whose name is passed into PetscIntitialize()
>
> If you pass in NULL to PetscInitialize(), it will not check option 3). If
> you pass in a real name to PetscIntiialize(), and
> in the "code specific file" you put -skpi_petscrc, then it will not check
> options 1) and 2).
>
>
> OK, I'm being dense but I think to be explicit you need to add "If you
> pass in NULL and use -skip_petscrc on the command line then no files will
> be checked."
>
> I wanted to not have files get checked and added -skip_petscrc to the
> command line but this was not sufficient.  I needed to change the code to
> use NULL (or I told my user to do so).  Sorry but I could not figure this
> out from the docs or even your better explanation w/o looking at the code.
>  It is natural to want to just add a command line option w/o recompiling,
> and this would be possible (not that I'm volunteering to do it) and would
> fit the PETSc philosophy of using command lines args and not user code to
> control.  Perhaps this is a dummy proof doc:
>
> There are three files we can check:
>
>  1) ~username/.petscrc
>  2) cwd/.petscrc and cwd/petscrc
>  3) This code specific file.
>
> If you pass in NULL, it will not check option 3) and if you additionally
> use -skip_petsc on the command line then no files will checked. If you pass
> in a real file name, and you put -skpi_petscrc in this file, then it will
> not check options 1) and 2).
>

Why don't we change it so that not even the "code specific file" is checked
with passing -skip_petscrc? I think this makes more sense
and it would solve Mark's problem, and likely other future problems.

   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/20130905/238f83bd/attachment.html>