On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> We have --with-clanguage=c or c++ (this is already weird, most > packages don't strife to be built either with C or C++) > --with-c-support=0,1 (compile with C++ but > with C bindings so C application can use it) > > User Code PETSc compiled with > ------------------------ C C++ > C x x > C++ x x > > Hope back into Satish's way back machine and ask the question > "why do we have this c-support business"? Seems like it complicates > life a lot? > I would just unconditionally use extern "C" when compiling PETSc with a C++ compiler. We don't use overloading (PetscPolymorphic* was removed last spring) so I don't think there is any functional reason to mangle symbols. AFAICT, the only functional reason for building PETSc with a C++ compiler is to use C++ complex (and perhaps because the C++ compiler catches different errors than the C compiler). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130305/4aabc4f4/attachment.html>
