On May 29, 2012, at 8:00 AM, Barry Smith wrote:
>>
>> Now I understand what you want. I agree with your goal of making the call
>> standard and transparent. There is one issue with this approach for a
>> function like PetscBagRegisterEnum (as far as I understand the C code),
>> where you don'
ag):
> ompflag = flag
> break
>
>
--
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
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120529/7c32ca41/attachment.html>
"+Oopenmp", # HP
> > "-qsmp",# IBM XL C/c++
> > "/openmp" # Microsoft Visual Studio
> > ]:
> > if self.setCompilers.checkCompilerFlag(flag):
> > ompflag = flag
> > break
> >
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120529/f717e993/attachment.html>
Perhaps the 'empty' flag check should be at the begining of the list..
[we do have other places in configure where we fix the order in which
flags are checked - due to similar conflicts between compilers]
Satish
On Tue, 29 May 2012, Jed Brown wrote:
> The OpenMP flags do not definitively identi
elf.setCompilers.checkCompilerFlag(flag):
ompflag = flag
break
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120529/cbdc2b8c/attachment.html>
On May 29, 2012, at 1:18 AM, Barry Smith wrote:
>
> Blaise,
>
> How about the attached? My goal is to have the usage be as similar to the
> other PetscOptions... calls and too not require the Fortran user to be C
> aware that is, they should not have to append null characters or declare
On May 29, 2012, at 3:29 AM, Blaise Bourdin wrote:
>
> On May 29, 2012, at 1:18 AM, Barry Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> Blaise,
>>
>>How about the attached? My goal is to have the usage be as similar to the
>> other PetscOptions... calls and too not require the Fortran user to be C
>> aware that
>
>> The current API plays better with GASM, since that PC assumes that the
>> basic subdomains are nonoverlapping. That fix will have to wait for the
>> next release, I guess.
>>
>
> PCGASMSetSubdomains() also has two IS arguments, so I don't know what you
> mean.
>
>
> We need to work out an interface for nonlinear DD (like ASPIN) this
> summer, but I don't think it belongs in this release. I'm not so wild about
> putting new interfaces into this release that will be changed immediately
> after.
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120529/ca98555a/attachment.html>
