[petsc-users] traceback & error handling

[Barry Smith]

   Andreas,

     Since almost all compilers now provide a variant of __funct__ automatically I've decided we can now remove all these definitions and still provide the tracebacks. Thus we are removing the need to define __FUNCT__ in the next couple of days in the master branch. One still needs, of course, to provide the CHKERRQ(ierr); 

   Barry

> On Dec 19, 2016, at 2:10 PM, Andreas Mang <andreas at ices.utexas.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hey guys:
> 
> I have some problems with the error handling. On my local machine (where I debug) I get a million warning messages if I do
> 
> #undef __FUNCT__
> #define __FUNCT__ “ClassName::FunctionName”
> 
> (i.e., file.cpp:XXX: __FUNCT__=“ClassName::FunctionName" does not agree with __func__=“FunctionName”)
> 
> If I run the same code using intel15 compilers it’s the opposite (which I discovered just now). That is, I get an error for
> 
> #undef __FUNCT__
> #define __FUNCT__ “FunctionName”
> 
> (i.e., file.cpp:XXX: __FUNCT__=“FunctionName" does not agree with __func__=“ClassName::FunctionName”)
> 
> I do like the error handling by PETSc. I think it’s quite helpful. Obviously, I can write my own stack trace but why bother if it’s already there. I did check your online documentation and I could no longer find these definitions in your code. So, should I just remove all of these definitions? Is there a quick fix? Is this depreciated? 
> 
> 
> Second of all, I saw you do no longer use error handling in your examples at all, i.e.,
> 
> ierr = FunctionCall(); CHKERRQ(ierr);
> 
> and friends have vanished. Why is that? Is it just to keep the examples simple or are you moving away from using these Macros for error handling.
> 
> I hope I did not miss any changes in this regard in one of your announcements. I could not find anything in the documentation.
> 
> Thanks
> Andreas
> 
>