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

[Matthew Knepley]

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.

  Matt


> 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>