Hi Antoine, alright, in such case you better unsubscribe from petsc-dev, as these types of discussions are common here. You got my email regarding the ViennaCL-interface in PETSc, didn't you?
Best regards, Karli On 03/22/2013 10:17 AM, Reymond, Antoine wrote: > Sorry but I am not sure I need to be in all these communications. > > *Antoine Reymond* > > Sr. Strategic Alliances Manager > > AMD Professional Graphics > > O: +(1) 949 336 6244 M: +(1) 949 870 2200 > > 52324A_FireProTechLogo_S_E s Visit us at: Twitter > <https://twitter.com/AMDFirePro>| amd.com <http://www.fireprographics.com/> > > *From:*petsc-dev-bounces at mcs.anl.gov > [mailto:petsc-dev-bounces at mcs.anl.gov] *On Behalf Of *Mark F. Adams > *Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2013 8:15 AM > *To:* For users of the development version of PETSc > *Subject:* Re: [petsc-dev] petsc/petsc added -pc_use_amat option to > PCSetFromOptions() (commit b9ee023) > > On Mar 21, 2013, at 10:07 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov > <mailto:jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov>> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov > <mailto: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. >
