On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Jim Fonseca <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > Does anyone have an update on PetscCheckPointer? > Jed pushed a fix for this. Matt > Thanks, > Jim > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Dave May <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I would be much happier with run-time as well, but I could also live with >> a reconfigure (it's just one MORE petsc build on my machine :D). >> >> What ever can be done to fix this issue would be appreciated. >> >> Cheers, >> Dave >> >> >> On 11 September 2013 18:12, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dave May <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>> > Yes, being able to optionally turn off the full memory checking >>> (either run >>> > time or via a configuration flag) in MatSetValues() would be good >>> enough. >>> >>> I'd rather make everything run-time unless it absolutely must be >>> configure time because it sucks to reconfigure (and possibly rebuild >>> downstream libraries/packages). >>> >>> > Presumably when the full error checking wasn't being used, the error >>> > checking should revert to using the old style memory checking (e.g. >>> ptr != 0) >>> > as was used in version 3.2 (and maybe 3.3, I cannot recall). >>> >>> Yes. As far as I'm concerned, it should also try to dereference it so >>> that a SEGV occurs early rather than later. The only difference between >>> safe and fast mode is that the SEGV in safe mode is caught by a friendly >>> signal handler than cleans up and returns so that a normal error can be >>> propagated. >>> >> >> > > > -- > Jim Fonseca, PhD > Research Scientist > Network for Computational Nanotechnology > Purdue University > 765-496-6495 > www.jimfonseca.com > > > -- 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
