On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> Ok, and this will still support all four cases above. How do we do > that? And would it simplify the mess we have now? > We just take the PETSC_USE_EXTERN_CXX branch everywhere so that if defined(__cplusplus), we always use extern "C" (independent of how PETSc was configured). This also gets rid of PETSC_EXTERN_C and PETSC_INTERN_C, leaving only PETSC_EXTERN and PETSC_INTERN. > > 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 > > Yes, if a C++ programmer is using PETSc and complex numbers this is a > legitimate case > > > (and perhaps because the C++ compiler catches different errors than the > C compiler). > > Yes, this is a legitimate use of our testing PETSc regularly with C++. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130305/2f72c16d/attachment.html>
