I'm not sure if I'm following the whole discussion but isn't the index fortran intrinsic the equivalent of this PetscFindInt? (Modulo returning a negative value) In which case, not having a fortran binding would not be a big deal.
Blaise Sent from a mobile device On Sep 22, 2012, at 11:36 PM, "Jed Brown" <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: >> I am fine with overloading the return value. It won't change how I use it. > > http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/petsc-dev/rev/4abec2d5e3ad > > It's a shame we can't have C99-style "inline" semantics. I'd like to give the > compiler the option of inlining it, but I don't know how to do Fortran > bindings for that (other than write it custom) if I make it a > PETSC_STATIC_INLINE. Oh well, that can wait. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120923/a6aa025e/attachment.html>
