On Jan 14, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> Note that even if you change it to an inline function it still will not give
> the correct stack frame since it is not inside the PetscFunctionBegin/End.
>
> The point is that an inline function routine couldn't be called in a
> declaration, so it would force people to move it.
Ok, I didn't realize inline functions can't be called in a declaration.
If that is the case then I am fine with changing to an inline and thus
forcing it always out of declarations.
Barry
> You're right that it looks like it was only used incorrectly in the places
> fixed here.
>
> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc-dev/commits/59c614dd5ce57f9497e794f6495fc91990a89274
>
>
> Shouldn't we simply ban its use in the declarations part of the routines?
>
> I thought it was already banned and that nobody was paying attention, sort of
> like the // comments.
>
> Note that its use in, for example,
>
> } else {
> PetscBLASInt ione = 1;
> PetscScalar aone = 1.0, azero = 0.0;
> PetscBLASInt neqs = PetscBLASIntCast(bcgsl->ell-1);
>
> is legal since it is within a PetscBegin/Return block and the last
> declaration given.
>
> A quick etags search found that it is being used correctly already almost
> anywhere. The suspicious place is only in the documentation :-)
>
> Thus I say, fix the documentation and check that it is never used incorrectly
> but don't change its form.
>
>
