On Mar 21, 2013, at 10:07 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > Why isn't this `PetscOptionsList()` so that it shows up in `-help`?
>
> My mistake, I cut and pasted the PetscOptionsGetInt() from the line above
> and figure that it mustn't be in a PetscOptionsBegin{} phase. You can fix it
> if you like.
>
> Hmm, problem is deeper than that. If the method has no sub-solver, wouldn't
> we rather not be checking this option, so that it shows up as an unused
> option?
I thought the primary mission of options_left was to catch spelling mistakes.
> (This is also useful if a PC logically ought to pay attention to this option,
> but isn't.) What about making PCSetUseAmat() use PetscTryMethod() and move
> the check of "-pc_use_amat" into each implementation?
>
I agree with Barry that it should be high level and make it there for any PC to
use if they want.
> Do we really want to leave the confusing option in place for all the PCs that
> don't have inner solvers?
It just doesn't seem that bad to me.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130322/f527dad6/attachment.html>
