Are these names correct?
#define PetscPowScalarComplex(a,b) complexlib::pow(a,b)
+#define PetscExpScalarComplex(a) complexlib::exp(a)
+#define PetscLogScalarComplex(a) complexlib::log(a)
Generally in PETSc when we have a function specific to a subclass (say
GMRES subclass of KSP) we use for example KSPGMRESSetRestart() NOT
KSPSetRestartGMRES().
And why is there a Scalar AND a Complex in the name?
Why not have
PetscRealLog( PetscReal x, ?
PetscComplexLog( PetscComplex x,?
PetscScalarLog( PetscScalar x,?. is always one of
the two above depending on the PetscScalar type at ./configure time
Barry
On Sep 10, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> I would like to use complex arithmetic in some code that does polynomial
> optimization in the complex plane (for adaptive smoothers), even when
> PetscScalar is real. I'd like to push something like the attached, but since
> this is potentially fragile, I'm posting here before pushing. Any objections
> to my pushing?
>
> This works with my C and C++ real builds as well as C and C++ complex. I also
> tried a real build that disabled PETSC_HAVE_C99_COMPLEX (because all my
> compilers support it), but of course that's not much of a check.
>
> One thing that I think we could support (because C99 and C++ complex is
> binary compatible) is choosing the complex implementation based on the
> current language rather than PETSC_CLANGUAGE.
> <complex.diff>
