On 13 March 2011 17:40, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > ?Concur. And fix that petscmg.h name at the same time :-) > > ? Barry > > On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > >> The solvers all have DM members now, but they only depend on the generic DM >> interface. Currently all of DMDA and now DMMesh are piled into petscdm.h >> which means that all the solvers need to be rebuilt any time these >> implementations change (e.g. a new implementation-specific function is >> added). The user already needs to decide which DM to use (DMDA, DMMesh, etc) >> so it would be no hardship to include petscdmda.h instead of just petscdm.h. >> For user-defined implementations of DM, this is already necessary. >> >> In order to loosen the dependency of the solvers on DM, I propose distilling >> petscdm.h to be only the core DM functionality (roughly what is in _DMOps) >> and creating petscdmda.h and petscdmmesh.h for the DMDA* and DMMesh* >> functions. Note that there is already some precedence for this in petscmg.h >> (which perhaps should be named petscpcmg.h), though I think the case for >> separation is much stronger for DM. >> >> If this change is going to happen, it should be before the release. > >
Hey, What's the status of the rule that #include <petsc.h> should give you all of PETSc? I've just tried to build petsc4py-dev, and things failed really bad... -- Lisandro Dalcin --------------- CIMEC (INTEC/CONICET-UNL) Predio CONICET-Santa Fe Colectora RN 168 Km 472, Paraje El Pozo 3000 Santa Fe, Argentina Tel: +54-342-4511594 (ext 1011) Tel/Fax: +54-342-4511169
