Matthew Knepley writes:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
>
>> Matthew Knepley writes:
>> > Not hard. We just add a flag to each value that is flipped on lookup,
>> > like PETSc.
>>
>> It would be nice to be able to offer suggestions for options that
>> BuildSystem queries. F
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
> Matthew Knepley writes:
> > Not hard. We just add a flag to each value that is flipped on lookup,
> > like PETSc.
>
> It would be nice to be able to offer suggestions for options that
> BuildSystem queries. For that, we need the set of command
Matthew Knepley writes:
> Not hard. We just add a flag to each value that is flipped on lookup,
> like PETSc.
It would be nice to be able to offer suggestions for options that
BuildSystem queries. For that, we need the set of command line options
and the set of options that BuildSystem checked.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
> Mark Adams writes:
>
> > Thanks, I keep forgetting that --help works for configure.
>
> Matt, when is configure going to be able to notice unused arguments and
> alert the user?
>
Not hard. We just add a flag to each value that is flipped on l
Mark Adams writes:
> Thanks, I keep forgetting that --help works for configure.
Matt, when is configure going to be able to notice unused arguments and
alert the user?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Thanks, I keep forgetting that --help works for configure.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
> Mark Adams writes:
>
> > I am trying to set the memory alignment and added PETSC-MEMALIGN=64, but
> it
> > did not seem to work.
>
> Where did you discover that spelling?
>
> $ ./confi
Mark Adams writes:
> I am trying to set the memory alignment and added PETSC-MEMALIGN=64, but it
> did not seem to work.
Where did you discover that spelling?
$ ./configure --help
[...]
--with-memalign=<4,8,16,32,64>
Specify alignment of arrays allocated by PETSc current: 16
signa
Barry Smith writes:
>I never proposed a particular approach to denote what is supported;
>I certainly didn't suggest we should use several boolean. I wasn't
>aware that "reworked" was defined as "use a bunch of booleans".
Sorry, I wasn't really replying to. Rather, I was saying that t
Thanks
> On Aug 22, 2016, at 2:20 PM, Patrick Sanan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Jed Brown wrote:
>> This design problem of using a boolean flag (or several flags) to denote
>> a set appears often in PETSc. We have types for denoting sets and we
>> should always use that in
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Jed Brown wrote:
> This design problem of using a boolean flag (or several flags) to denote
> a set appears often in PETSc. We have types for denoting sets and we
> should always use that in new code. We usually fix the legacy issues
> when they cause a problem.
> On Aug 22, 2016, at 1:44 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
>
> This design problem of using a boolean flag (or several flags) to denote
> a set appears often in PETSc. We have types for denoting sets and we
> should always use that in new code.
I never proposed a particular approach to denote what i
This design problem of using a boolean flag (or several flags) to denote
a set appears often in PETSc. We have types for denoting sets and we
should always use that in new code. We usually fix the legacy issues
when they cause a problem. I would probably switch this instance to
something like
package.py has
self.double = 0 # 1 means requires double precision
but this should be reworked to allow indicating if a package supports single,
double, and __float128 then each package/xxx.py should list what it supports.
Barry
> On Aug 22, 2016, at 12:44 PM, Patrick S
It seems to be possible to configure and build PETSc with
quad/__float128 precision only to find that your code won't run
because the external package you were planning on using doesn't
support quad precision (as it usually won't).
It seems that configure will not prevent you from building with
ex
We are in agreement. I should not use double negatives.
This change should be made.
Todd.
> On Aug 21, 2016, at 11:39 PM, Barry Smith wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 21, 2016, at 11:33 PM, Munson, Todd wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't see any reason not to make the change.
>
> I any new solvers are to be
15 matches
Mail list logo
