On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 21:57, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> We originally started with multiple libraries because in the 1990's PETSc > libraries were "BIG" and made live hard for some filesystems and linkers. > Now libpetsc.a is not big, by modern standards of big so is there any reason > at all to keep the option of having lots of libraries (that don't get tested > properly)? > I still test that option, but only because I'm paranoid about developing cycles in the dependencies between different packages within petsc. If there was another way to perform this sanity check, I would be fully in favor of getting rid of the option. I'm probably in favor of it regardless. On my machine, an optimized C libpetsc.so is between 5 and 10 MB depending on optimization flags. A debug C++ with Sieve is a bit over 100 MiB. That 100 MiB is significant on a low-memory platform, but on a low-memory machine, you would expect to link statically and then you only need lots of memory on the development machine. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20110321/1ac3baf6/attachment.html>
