On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> writes: > > > What are you talking about? Of fucking course it warns when you use > > complex. I never said it did not. > > I said that you have to build with complex and you said: > > | I missed it when I went over the example, and C does not check typedefs, > | only the underlying type. > No, I said the above lines first, and then you said "build it with complex". Check the email. > then: > > | Yes, I am aware, and as I pointed out, I was checking the complex build, > > I interpreted this as an assertion that you built the example with > complex, which is clearly not true. (Yes, I also wish C had a strong > typedef.) > It meant I was checking the PETSc build with complex, which does not have the examples in it. Matt > This will be fixed when we have one command to compile all examples into > one executable. Should I merge the branch that does that now instead of > holding off until we can run the test suite that way? I think there is > value in just having the compiler check all the examples. > -- 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
