On Sep 5, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.html >> I 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. This would be easy to do. Satish's suggestion of a new parameter -skip_useroptfile would work too but and more stuff … I would vote for Matt's solution. > > 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
