> PetscCall in C doesn’t actually “call” the function that is in its arguments, > but rather “checks” the called function’s return
The most logical form would have been `PetscCheck()` but we unfortunately we had just recently added it as a replacement for ``` if (error) SETERRQ() ``` So the idea instead was to have a `PetscSafeCall()` but with less typing. It also fit with the previous `PetscStackCall()` family. You can find the naming discussion here https://gitlab.com/petsc/petsc/-/merge_requests/4889#note_854556084 Best regards, Jacob Faibussowitsch (Jacob Fai - booss - oh - vitch) > On Apr 26, 2022, at 20:18, Boyce Griffith <boy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Apr 26, 2022, at 8:12 PM, Barry Smith <bsm...@petsc.dev >> <mailto:bsm...@petsc.dev>> wrote: >> >> I didn't like PetscCall(ierr) in Fortran because it is strange, even >> freakish. PetscCall(AFunction(args)) makes sense in C but IMHO "call >> AFunction(args,ierr); PetscCall(ierr)" looks weird, what are you calling? >> Nothing. I'd like to keep CHKERRQ(ierr) in Fortran and not support >> PetscCall(ierr) in Fortran. > > I have to admit that I don’t really understand the C usage either, since > unless I am misreading the code, PetscCall in C doesn’t actually “call” the > function that is in its arguments, but rather “checks” the called function’s > return value. > > — Boyce
