Vijay,
> I checked out a new repository and tried to configure/make. I see that
> config.h has "DEAL_II_USE_PETSC_VERSION_DEV" undefined even though I
> am using the dev version of petsc/slepc. I've attached config.log. I
> haven't had time to look into this yet. Let me know if you need any
> other information.
DEAL_II_USE_PETSC_VERSION_DEV should be defined as yes/no in
common/Make.global_options. deal.II 7.1.pre r24276. Can you
update and check again please? It may be that I spoke too soon
earlier... sorry.
> Also, I haven't tried configure a petsc-dev version with a
> slepc-release version or vice-versa. The configure script for slepc
> may disallow this but it might be worth confirming.
Don't! The reason things are as they are is outlined in the information
pages of deal.II and SLEPc. Mixing version numbers and/or dev/release
may work... but that is definately not supported by anyone anywhere.
VERSION_MAJOR and VERSION_MINOR are supposed to be synced between PETSc
and SLEPc (deal.II checks this); patch numbers are supposed to be
backward compatible and that is why there are no checks for patch
numbersin deal.II.
> The check on whether it is a dev version alone might not be sufficient
> for the *Destroy(&x) family of routines. This is because in the next
> version of petsc, these changes will be part of the release and your
> code branch will have compiler errors. You probably want to check for
> DEAL_II_PETSC_VERSION_GTE(3,2,0) also.
I think you misunderstand what the interface does. When the next
version of PETSc is released (which should be in a few days) all of the
_DEV code becomes the default and the current default code gets wrapped
into 3.1. Thus for now (petsc-3.1):
#if DEAL_II_PETSC_VERSION_DEV()
f(&x)
#else
f(x)
#endif
will become (petsc-3.2):
#if DEAL_II_PETSC_VERSION_LT(3,2,0)
f(x)
#else
f(&x)
#endif
which is awkward, mainly due to an unbelievably strange choice of
numbering dev packages by PETSc, but it works.
Since all of the code is there (and sometimes there is more) the
transition to new PETSc releases is very quick and simple. The
transition from 3.0->3.1 took me a couple of hours using this
type of conversion. There is a transition period - that will
actually happen very soon - and you will see how this works then.
Does that make sense? If there is an obviously "better" way of doing
this, I will be happy enough to listen to your screams. :-)
Best,
Toby
--
Toby D. Young
Assistant Professor Philosophy & Physics
Polish Academy of Sciences
www: http://www.ippt.gov.pl/~tyoung
skype: stenografia
_______________________________________________
dealii mailing list http://poisson.dealii.org/mailman/listinfo/dealii
