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

[Scott Kruger]

It's already there -- I fixed your pull request:

gabrielle 70: git blame gmakefile | grep NP
b95da926fad (Matthew Knepley 2017-06-14 17:33:01 -0600 103) ifdef NP
b95da926fad (Matthew Knepley 2017-06-14 17:33:01 -0600 104)   TESTFLAGS 
+= -n $(NP)  # set number of processes


This is in master.

Scott


On 10/7/17 7:57 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org 
> <mailto:jed at jedbrown.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com <mailto: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/>

-- 
Tech-X Corporation               kruger at txcorp.com
5621 Arapahoe Ave, Suite A       Phone: (720) 974-1841
Boulder, CO 80303                Fax:   (303) 448-7756