Great, thanks.
On Apr 20, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Satish Balay wrote: > On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Matthew Knepley wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Apr 20, 2011, at 10:18 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I think Jed pointed out a problem with the current approach. We don't >>> really want to have MANSECs for each DMXXXX but we do want different include >>> files. I forgot what Jed and I concluded but it could be that some makefiles >>> need SUBMANSEC that appends onto the MANSEC. By the way it is DMDA not dadm, >>> the base class always comes first. >>>> >>>> Already pushed a bunch of MANSEC changes. >>> >>> You may need to unpush them. >>> >> >> I am not doing anything until this crap is explained. I would not have had >> to push erroneous stuff if >> the process and inputs were clear. MANSEC directly mapped to sections of manual pages (for generating docs) and also to include files (for generating Fortran stuff) . So it served two slightly different purposes. Jed decided that things like da should have their own include file (not just be in petscdm.h just like petscpcmg.h. This broke the direct mapping for man page sections and include files. By introducing SUBMANSEC we can map to the include files again. Barry > > > I've added in SUBMANSEC propcessing in generatefortranstubs.py - and > will change Matt's MANSEC changes to SUBMANSEC [in makefiles] > > Satish
