[petsc-dev] PETSC_DESIRE_COMPLEX vs <petsccomplex.h>

Satish Balay balay at mcs.anl.gov
Mon Jul 28 11:12:37 CDT 2014

On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Jed Brown wrote:

> Can we loosen the order-dependence so that instructions can be
>   #include <petsccomplex.h>
> instead of defining PETSC_DESIRE_COMPLEX in the compilation unit?  I
> think the include is more natural and less error-prone.

you mean - it would be ok to have the following?

#include <petsc.h>
#include <petscomplex.h>

I guess we should maintain a list of include-files that are not
automatically included from petsc.h

[petscblaslapack.h, petscwebclient.h, petscviennacl.h and perhaps others..]


More information about the petsc-dev mailing list