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

Matthew Knepley knepley at gmail.com
Mon Jan 20 07:08:59 CST 2014

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org> wrote:

> 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.

No, I said the above lines first, and then you said "build it with
complex". Check the email.

> then:
> | 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.)

It meant I was checking the PETSc build with complex, which does not have
the examples in it.


> 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.

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/20140120/1ea17078/attachment.html>

More information about the petsc-dev mailing list