On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Matthew Knepley wrote: > On 10/20/07, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > My proposal is to have PetscSizeT [atleast on the fortran side - that > > is set properly - simlar to PetscFortranAddr]. > I would rather run the logic backwards. In my opinion, typedefing size_t in > C is the correct solution and leaves you with sane looking code. Fortran is > the problem here. So define a type size_t in Fortran as well. We don't pollute in the general namespace. So adding 'size_t' to fortran will break this rule. Also all current PETSc defined types start with a cap. And we hardly use any general 'c' datatypes anyway. [for eg: we define MPIInt, BLASInt etc instead of using int]. We also wrap memcpy() under PetscMemcpy() - so don't have a PETSc implemented fortran-function 'call memcpy()'. [Perhaps there were also other reasons for this wrapping]. So I think defining 'size_t' on the fortan side creates ambiguity [and breaks the current conventions] - and should be avoided. For now, I've changed fortran-interface to use PetscSizeT. C-interface continues to use size_t. Satish
