On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:45:07 -0500, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > If ML is being replaced why waste any time on it?
Agreed, but I don't know how long it's going to take to have something usable. The Sandia folks are all still using ML because the rewrite isn't usable yet. > Why not become a beta tester of the rewrite and make an interface for > that? (You would possibly be able to influence bad decisions they are > going to make). Agreed, it would help if Sandia had public repositories. > PETSc already defined CCXX even when using the C compiler. You > could introduce SOURCECXX in the makefiles and possibly make mixing in > some C++ code relatively easily. Okay. > BUT why not just build PETSc with C++, what is the downside to that? The C compiler is faster and produces better error messages because it doesn't get confused by things like function overloading. Since C and C++ are different languages, it's reasonable for a user to want to build their own work either way without recompiling the library (and still using PETSc makefiles). I'm aware of --with-c-support, but I don't see any point to building PETSc proper (disregarding Sieve) with a C++ compiler. Jed
