On Dec 19, 2013, at 5:44 PM, Satish Balay <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2013, Barry Smith wrote: > >> >> On Dec 19, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> is there a good reason not to add rules for all the fortran stubs with the >>> right dependencies, and call bfort individually? >> >> Can all the generated files also go in ${PETSC_ARCH} instead of within the >> source code so that I can have different branches with different arches and >> switch between them without having to regenerate (and remove) the fortran >> stubs appropriate for that particular arch — branch. > > One issue is distributing and compiling sowing. > > For ex: on windows it currently builds with g++ [not MS C]. And on big > machines [and batch systems] we don't want to be building it with > mpicc. Valid point. Perhaps they compiled stubs could be included somewhere in the tar ball and copied over to the PETSC_ARCH directory when using the tar ball and only generated when using git. Barry > > Satish
