[petsc-dev] transitioning more PETSc tests to new harness before next release

[Matthew Knepley]

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org> wrote:

> Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > This seems masochistic. I want to run a test with a different number
> > of processes.  So my best option is print out the options, cut & paste
> > that soewhere, alter it to what I want, and run? Why would we have
> > EXTRA_OPTIONS?
>
> I often want to run in a debugger with a command like
>
>   mpiexec -n 2 xterm -e gdb -ex 'b file.c:123' -ex r --args ./ex12
> -some_options
>
> which just seems painful any other way.  But if you want to write that
> by remembering a collection of variables through which to pass each
> part, I won't stop you.
>

Good, don't stop me. Also don't prevent use from putting NPROCS into the
test harness.

  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

https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20171007/e4790de2/attachment.html>