On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Satish Balay wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Lisandro Dalc?n wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Barry Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > ?I vote to have one library -lpetsc and one include file petsc.h
>> >
>> > ? Barry
>> >
>> > Only partially joking
>> >
>>
>> Well, ha
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Jed Brown wrote:
> Is there a reason that this uses PetscOptionsHasName instead of
> PetscOptionsGetTruth?
This is likely a leftover from (Barry's ?) changes some time ago.
> I would prefer the latter behavior because it
> would let me switch options on and off wi
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Barry Smith wrote:
>
> ?I vote to have one library -lpetsc and one include file petsc.h
>
> ? Barry
>
> Only partially joking
>
Well, having a single include, even if it is not called "petsc.h",
would be really nice.
>
> On Feb 3, 2010, at 6:08 PM, Satish Balay w
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Jed Brown wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:08:34 -0600 (CST), Satish Balay
> wrote:
>> Should we default to using --with-single-library=1? [I'd prefer this -
>> as it will minimize dlopen issues from external packages.]
>>
>> Also - I'd like to have distinct library
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>
> It says there is a stack smash and no other info. This is completely fucking
> my development right now.
>
Any chance bfort was built with -fstack-protector flag? This failure
could could be signaling an actual old bug in bfort... I woul
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Lisandro Dalc?n
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Matthew Knepley
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > If we are using shared libraries, and the MPI shared library was broken,
>> > the
>> > configure faile
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>
> If we are using shared libraries, and the MPI shared library was broken, the
> configure failed. This option was added
> to allow the user to turn off that check.
>
What does 'broken' means? How can the lib be broken for configure, but
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Matthew Knepley
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Barry Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 14, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>>
>>> I strongly disagree with this change. I would like to back it out until
>>> we discuss it. The correct
>>> thing to do is
