On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Jose E. Roman <jroman at dsic.upv.es> wrote:
> The manpage of MatShellSetOperation states that "all user-provided > functions should have the same calling sequence as the usual matrix > interface routines", but this does not apply to MATOP_DESTROY due to the > change MatDestroy(Mat)-->MatDestroy(Mat*) in 3.2. > > One possible fix would be that all MatDestroy_* functions receive a > pointer. Or alternatively warn about the exception in the manpage of > MatShellSetOperation. There is nothing preventing us from having two different signatures, but I think the internak destroys should take a pointer. Matt > > Jose > > -- 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/20111212/ef17790f/attachment.html>