Actually GNU make features are the only reason I continue to touch make -- without them I would not use it for anything.
Boyana -- Boyana Norris, Computer Scientist, Argonne National Laboratory norris at mcs.anl.gov, +1.630.252.7908, http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~norris/ On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Barry Smith wrote: > > Boyana, > > We are going to stop using make before we ever start using GNU > make features :-) > > Barry > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:23 PM, Boyana Norris wrote: > >> >> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Barry Smith wrote: >> >>> >>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Boyana Norris wrote: >>> >>>> Why not recognize both? It's fairly trivial to check for >>>> PETSC_CONF if PETSC_ARCH is undefined and internally define >>>> PETSC_ARCH using PETSC_CONF. >>> >>> This is a make variable. I am not sure that it is trivial to check >>> if a variable is set and use something else otherwise in a tidy >>> way in make. Plus I had the idea of having two variables that mean >>> the same thing. >> >> There are a couple of different ways, e.g., one is >> >> ifndef PETSC_ARCH >> ifdef PETSC_CONF >> PETSC_ARCH=$(PETSC_CONF) >> else >> $(error "Make sure the PETSC_CONF environment variable is defined >> before running make.") >> endif >> endif >> >> This is for GNU make, which is pretty widely available, and may >> have to be adjusted for ancient systems. >> >> Boyana >> >>> >>> Barry >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Boyana >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boyana Norris, Computer Scientist, Argonne National Laboratory >>>> norris at mcs.anl.gov, +1.630.252.7908, http://www.mcs.anl.gov/ >>>> ~norris/ >>>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Barry Smith >>>>> <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I guess the argument is that on occasion in the future a certain >>>>> number of people will misinterpret the meaning of PETSC_ARCH >>>>> frustrating them and us; the number misinterpreting PETSC_CONF >>>>> will be much smaller or zero saving people's time and energy. >>>>> >>>>> This will be far outweighed by the number of people complaining >>>>> about such a change. I agree with them. >>>>> >>>>> Matt >>>>> >>>>> Barry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I see the point, but this is one of the oldest parts of PETSc, >>>>> and I am hesitant to change one >>>>> arbitrary name to another without a more convincing reason. >>>>> >>>>> Matt >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Barry Smith >>>>> <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Lisandro has pointed out to me several times that the variable >>>>> name PETSC_ARCH can be confusing; some people may think it is >>>>> related to the architecture of the machine and don't understand >>>>> that it is an arbitrary name that the user can make up. He >>>>> suggested changing it to PETSC_CONF to be clearer. >>>>> >>>>> Should we change it? Use something else? >>>>> >>>>> Barry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >> >