On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Scott Kruger <[email protected]> wrote:
> > It's already there -- I fixed your pull request: > Great! Thanks Scott. Matt > gabrielle 70: git blame gmakefile | grep NP > b95da926fad (Matthew Knepley 2017-06-14 17:33:01 -0600 103) ifdef NP > b95da926fad (Matthew Knepley 2017-06-14 17:33:01 -0600 104) TESTFLAGS += > -n $(NP) # set number of processes > > > This is in master. > > Scott > > > On 10/7/17 7:57 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected] <mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Matthew Knepley <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> writes: >> >> > This seems masochistic. I want to run a test with a different >> number >> > of processes. So my best option is print out the options, cut & >> paste >> > that soewhere, alter it to what I want, and run? Why would we have >> > EXTRA_OPTIONS? >> >> I often want to run in a debugger with a command like >> >> mpiexec -n 2 xterm -e gdb -ex 'b file.c:123' -ex r --args ./ex12 >> -some_options >> >> which just seems painful any other way. But if you want to write that >> by remembering a collection of variables through which to pass each >> part, I won't stop you. >> >> >> Good, don't stop me. Also don't prevent use from putting NPROCS into the >> test harness. >> >> 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 >> >> https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/> >> > > -- > Tech-X Corporation [email protected] > 5621 Arapahoe Ave, Suite A Phone: (720) 974-1841 > Boulder, CO 80303 Fax: (303) 448-7756 > -- 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 https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>
