[petsc-dev] Matt, please don't put buggy code into PETSc

Jed Brown jed at jedbrown.org
Sun Jan 19 21:17:47 CST 2014

Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> writes:

> What are you talking about? Of fucking course it warns when you use
> complex. I never said it did not.

I said that you have to build with complex and you said:

| I missed it when I went over the example, and C does not check typedefs,
| only the underlying type.


| Yes, I am aware, and as I pointed out, I was checking the complex build,

I interpreted this as an assertion that you built the example with
complex, which is clearly not true.  (Yes, I also wish C had a strong typedef.)

This will be fixed when we have one command to compile all examples into
one executable.  Should I merge the branch that does that now instead of
holding off until we can run the test suite that way?  I think there is
value in just having the compiler check all the examples.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20140119/fc319700/attachment.sig>

More information about the petsc-dev mailing list