Hi Matt, > Since there was a lack of consensus on alternatives, I applied > Matt's Right Way here: > > https://bitbucket.org/petsc/____petsc-dev/commits/____fabf60c7d012db5a109255579665b5____c2 > > <https://bitbucket.org/petsc/__petsc-dev/commits/__fabf60c7d012db5a109255579665b5__c2> > > > <https://bitbucket.org/petsc/__petsc-dev/commits/__fabf60c7d012db5a109255579665b5__c2 > > <https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc-dev/commits/fabf60c7d012db5a109255579665b5c2>> > > https://bitbucket.org/petsc/____buildsystem/commits/____355293e9e4e0588644168f629930b5____66 > > <https://bitbucket.org/petsc/__buildsystem/commits/__355293e9e4e0588644168f629930b5__66> > > > > <https://bitbucket.org/petsc/__buildsystem/commits/__355293e9e4e0588644168f629930b5__66 > > <https://bitbucket.org/petsc/buildsystem/commits/355293e9e4e0588644168f629930b566>> > > This is mostly done to ensure that we don't forget about > the initial > goal of fixing the issue. Cleaner/more unified solutions to the > problem are still welcome... > > > This is almost there. I will have BuildSystem write the define > directly > like Barry suggested. > > > Okay, thanks! Just make sure you set up the macros in the right way > (Barry accidentally interchanged the old and the new versions in his > email). > > > How are you testing this?
Carefully fiddling with my local sources prior to the commit... I don't know of a way to test the backwards-macros other than inspecting the preprocessed code... Oh, and Barry's macro proposal was right (I forgot that this assumed an update of sources already) Best regards, Karli
