On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> Probably not, but petscsys.h includes petsc-private/petscimpl.h > petscvec.h includes petsc-private/vecimpl.h etc so I think all user code > includes all the parts of petsc-private that PETSc code does. > Could we reasonably split those? Something that is always included by user code is not very "private". Can we put the essential parts in petscsysinline.h, petscvecinline.h? > > Could we bag the ugly MPI logging macros and somehow use the "perfectly > designed" MPI profiling level to gather the information? Sadly I think not, > but would that be workable? (And still work with other MPI logging systems?) > We have source code access so we should put our logging at a higher level. That stuff is meant to enable profiling without source code (just by linking differently). I think our choices are to namespace every intercept or to put the intercepts somewhere that they don't conflict with other libraries. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130121/4d57a496/attachment-0001.html>
