On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Jed Brown <jed at 59a2.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 19:22, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Does yours? My Emacs does not follow #if, and it would not know what >> branch anyway. >> > > Semantic can parse petscconf.h, then it knows. You are familiar with M-x > cpp-highlight-mode, right? > > >> >> >>> How would it be easier to audit whether all possible combinations were >>> valid if the code was generated? >>> >> >> 1) I would see exactly what I got (I know I can do this by hand with -E) > > > But only for one configuration at a time, the preprocessor statements would > be simple if there were a small number of possible configurations. It is > nested deeply because there is a combinatorial number of possibilities. How > is auditing that faster with code generation. In particular, when you change > the generator, how do you confirm that all possible combinations still > result in correct code? >
Verification of preprocess code is exactly as intensive, since you have to compile each version. What is your point here? > >> 2) I could look at the configure log to see what decisions were made. This >> is difficult with the #if model. >> > > LOL. > > > 3) The problem turns out to be silent failure due to the need to > reconfigure. This would not happen in the > generated model. > > If everything was generated, you would always need to reconfigure. Why > don't you just always reconfigure now? > The code I had would have continued to work, rather than break. Matt -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20110315/16446732/attachment.html>
