[petsc-dev] alternatives to cygwin on Windows with PETSc

[Smith, Barry F.]

> On Jul 2, 2019, at 9:57 AM, JR Cary via petsc-dev <petsc-dev at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> 
    The only way that we current support this is with the cygwin install process. 

    I added some notes (from Satish) on the difficulties of getting a pure Windows compiler build using the other systems. See the bottom of https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/pull-requests/1836/installationhtml-edited-online-with/diff Not necessarily impossible but someone would have to sit down and work through it.  It is basically because of the different way the Microsoft developer tools handle paths and command line options.

  Barry



   
> Does this give one a petsc that can then be linked into a pure Windows
> application, e.g., using Visual Studio?
> 
> Thx......John
> 
> On 7/2/19 8:52 AM, Balay, Satish via petsc-dev wrote:
>> I guess any linux installation mode should work on WSL. Pip is primarily there for  petsc4py.
>> 
>> Perhaps we could add it somewhere for both linux and windows..
>> 
>> Satish
>> 
>> On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, Ham, David A wrote:
>> 
>>> For the record, `pip install petsc` is known to cleanly install PETSc on WSL. This is basically what happens in the firedrake installer, which works on WSL. Instructions are here: https://github.com/firedrakeproject/firedrake/wiki/Installing-on-Windows-Subsystem-for-Linux
>>> 
>>> On 01/07/2019, 23:26, "petsc-dev on behalf of Smith, Barry F. via petsc-dev" <petsc-dev-bounces at mcs.anl.gov on behalf of petsc-dev at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>> 
>>>          https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/pull-requests/1836/installationhtml-edited-online-with/diff
>>>          I try to provide a better guild for Windows possibilities without windows compilers. (Could probably do with some light editing). Maybe more options?
>>>            Satish,
>>>          At the bottom of the Windows installation instructions on installation.html you should list your bullets below to explain the difficulties of using Windows compilers in general and perhaps inspire someone to add code for one of the other systems.
>>>               > On Jul 1, 2019, at 4:43 PM, Balay, Satish <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>>     >
>>>     > This discussion comes up each time a user has issues with cygwin.
>>>     >
>>>     > For any alternate system, we would have to redo win32fe functionality for that system.
>>>     >
>>>     > 	• Marshal gcc type compiler options to Cl
>>>     > 	• Convert paths in some of these options from this system ( for ex cygwin paths) to Windows paths.
>>>     > 	• Have python that works with system path notation.
>>>     > 	• Have the ability equivalent to Windows process spawning cygwin process spawning Windows process. Wsl1 lacked this. Don't know about wsl2..
>>>     >
>>>     > Current issue with cygwin was some bash config issue. Even if we manage to port build tools to wsl2 or alternative system,  such sub-tool issues can still come up in the new system.
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     > Satish
>>>     >
>>>     > From: Smith, Barry F. via petsc-dev
>>>     > Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 2:17 PM
>>>     > To: Mills, Richard Tran
>>>     > Cc: petsc-dev at mcs.anl.gov
>>>     > Subject: Re: [petsc-dev] alternatives to cygwin on Windows with PETSc
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     >    Richard,
>>>     >
>>>     >      Thanks. The important thing is to be able to build PETSc for Microsoft and Intel Windows compilers (so that users can use the libraries from the Microsoft development system as a "regular" Windows users).
>>>     >
>>>     >    Barry
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     > > On Jul 1, 2019, at 3:59 PM, Mills, Richard Tran via petsc-dev <petsc-dev at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>>     > >
>>>     > > I played around with WSL1 quite some time ago and it seemed pretty promising. I have not tried WSL2, but I'm guessing that it may be the best option for building PETSc on a Windows 10 machine. I've got a Windows 10 machine (it basically just runs my television/media center) and I'll give it a try on there.
>>>     > >
>>>     > > --Richard
>>>     > >
>>>     > > On 6/29/19 8:11 PM, Jed Brown via petsc-dev wrote:
>>>     > >> "Smith, Barry F. via petsc-dev" <petsc-dev at mcs.anl.gov>
>>>     > >>  writes:
>>>     > >>
>>>     > >>
>>>     > >>>   Does it make sense to recommend/suggest  git bash for Windows as an alternative/in addition to Cygwin?
>>>     > >>>
>>>     > >> I would love to be able to recommend git-bash and/or WSL2 (which now
>>>     > >> includes a full Linux kernel).  I don't have a system on which to test,
>>>     > >> but it should be possible to make it work (if it doesn't already).
>>>     > >>
>>>     > >
>>>          
>>> 
>