Re: [petsc-dev] I just removed Fortran support from my development build

2018-10-22 Thread Smith, Barry F.
> On Oct 22, 2018, at 12:17 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > > "Smith, Barry F." writes: > >> Jed, >> >> Why are the modules always built last? >> >> . >> FC arch-basic/obj/sys/objects/f2003-src/fsrc/optionenum.o >> FC arch-basic/obj/sys/classes/bag/f2003-src/fsrc/bag

Re: [petsc-dev] I just removed Fortran support from my development build

2018-10-22 Thread Balay, Satish
I'm not sure if one can give priority to mod compilation in gmake - but I think the first module is scheduled quickly - but then that takes some time to compile. CC arch-linux2-c-debug/obj/sys/objects/gcomm.o Use "/usr/bin/gmake V=1" to see verbose compile lines, "/usr/bin/gmake V=0" to

Re: [petsc-dev] I just removed Fortran support from my development build

2018-10-22 Thread Jed Brown
"Smith, Barry F." writes: > Jed, > > Why are the modules always built last? > > . > FC arch-basic/obj/sys/objects/f2003-src/fsrc/optionenum.o > FC arch-basic/obj/sys/classes/bag/f2003-src/fsrc/bagenum.o > FC arch-basic/obj/mat/f90-mod/petscmatmod.o >

Re: [petsc-dev] I just removed Fortran support from my development build

2018-10-22 Thread Smith, Barry F.
Jed, Why are the modules always built last? . FC arch-basic/obj/sys/objects/f2003-src/fsrc/optionenum.o FC arch-basic/obj/sys/classes/bag/f2003-src/fsrc/bagenum.o FC arch-basic/obj/mat/f90-mod/petscmatmod.o FC arch-basic/obj/dm/f90-mod/pe

Re: [petsc-dev] I just removed Fortran support from my development build

2018-10-22 Thread Jed Brown
"Balay, Satish" writes: > Currently fortran modules are built sequentially [due to dependencies] > > Perhaps there is a way to split them up - and introduce some parallelism.. I think we would have to follow a pattern similar to the petsc*types.h headers where we would have a module that only de

Re: [petsc-dev] I just removed Fortran support from my development build

2018-10-22 Thread Balay, Satish
Currently fortran modules are built sequentially [due to dependencies] Perhaps there is a way to split them up - and introduce some parallelism.. Satish On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, Matthew Knepley wrote: > Jenkins will now catch bad Fortran bindings. However, this is a larger > problem. GFortran takes

Re: [petsc-dev] I just removed Fortran support from my development build

2018-10-22 Thread Matthew Knepley
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:58 AM Dener, Alp wrote: > > > On Oct 22, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > Jenkins will now catch bad Fortran bindings. However, this is a larger > problem. GFortran takes forever to build the bindings. Is it similar for > other compilers? > > > On my MacBoo

Re: [petsc-dev] I just removed Fortran support from my development build

2018-10-22 Thread Dener, Alp
On Oct 22, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Matthew Knepley mailto:knep...@gmail.com>> wrote: Jenkins will now catch bad Fortran bindings. However, this is a larger problem. GFortran takes forever to build the bindings. Is it similar for other compilers? On my MacBook, the Homebrew GFortran 8.2.0 takes 5-8

Re: [petsc-dev] I just removed Fortran support from my development build

2018-10-22 Thread Jose E. Roman
In my experience, ifort is much faster than gfortran building the Fortran bindings. Jose > El 22 oct 2018, a las 15:18, Matthew Knepley escribió: > > Jenkins will now catch bad Fortran bindings. However, this is a larger > problem. GFortran takes forever to build the bindings. Is it similar f

[petsc-dev] I just removed Fortran support from my development build

2018-10-22 Thread Matthew Knepley
Jenkins will now catch bad Fortran bindings. However, this is a larger problem. GFortran takes forever to build the bindings. Is it similar for other compilers? Matt -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results