[petsc-dev] CHKERRQ vs PetscCall for Fortran? Which is the future?

[Satish Balay]

Hm we reverted all fortran examples to use CHKERRQ(). [from PetscCall] so presumably CHKERRQ() is still the preferred interface from fortran?

Satish

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022, Jacob Faibussowitsch wrote:

> Hi Glenn,
> 
> `PetscCall()` is the future, apologies for the confusion.
> 
> `CHKERRQ()` was mistakenly deleted from the fortran include files but exists for backwards-compatibility only.
> 
> Unlike “normal” changes we opted not to formally deprecate `CHKERRQ()` and friends (complete with compiler warnings) since they are so widely used.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jacob Faibussowitsch
> (Jacob Fai - booss - oh - vitch)
> 
> > On Apr 26, 2022, at 17:36, Hammond, Glenn E via petsc-dev <petsc-dev at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > 
> > PETSc,
> > 
> > I see that CHKERRQ is back in the Fortran interface after 3.17.1.  Will CHKERRQ be removed in the future?  I just wrote a script to refactor PFLOTRAN [CHKERRQ() -> PetscCall()], and I want to know which direction to head before asking everything to check in all their dev branches.  If CHKERRQ() is available with Fortran for the future, I will abandon the script and leave the devs alone.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Glenn
>