On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Mark F. Adams <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sep 5, 2013, at 6:16 AM, Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Mark F. Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In >> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/Sys/PetscInitialize.htmlI >> see: >> >> *file*- [optional] PETSc database file, also checks ~username/.petscrc >> and .petscrc use NULL to not check for code specific file. Use >> -skip_petscrc in the code specific file to skip the .petscrc files >> I don't understand what "Use -skip_petscrc in the code specific file" >> means. In looking at the code it seems like this line should read >> something like: >> >> … If you do not want to use a resource file, use NULL and >> add -skip_petscrc to the command line. >> > > Here is what it is trying to say. There are three files we can check: > > 1) ~username/.petscrc > 2) cwd/.petscrc > 3) "code specific file", whose name is passed into PetscIntitialize() > > If you pass in NULL to PetscInitialize(), it will not check option 3). If > you pass in a real name to PetscIntiialize(), and > in the "code specific file" you put -skpi_petscrc, then it will not check > options 1) and 2). > > > OK, I'm being dense but I think to be explicit you need to add "If you > pass in NULL and use -skip_petscrc on the command line then no files will > be checked." > > I wanted to not have files get checked and added -skip_petscrc to the > command line but this was not sufficient. I needed to change the code to > use NULL (or I told my user to do so). Sorry but I could not figure this > out from the docs or even your better explanation w/o looking at the code. > It is natural to want to just add a command line option w/o recompiling, > and this would be possible (not that I'm volunteering to do it) and would > fit the PETSc philosophy of using command lines args and not user code to > control. Perhaps this is a dummy proof doc: > > There are three files we can check: > > 1) ~username/.petscrc > 2) cwd/.petscrc and cwd/petscrc > 3) This code specific file. > > If you pass in NULL, it will not check option 3) and if you additionally > use -skip_petsc on the command line then no files will checked. If you pass > in a real file name, and you put -skpi_petscrc in this file, then it will > not check options 1) and 2). > Why don't we change it so that not even the "code specific file" is checked with passing -skip_petscrc? I think this makes more sense and it would solve Mark's problem, and likely other future problems. Matt -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener
