Yes, that works. Thanks, Jed!
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > Geoff, thanks for the log. > > | In file included from > /Users/goxberry/petsc-3.4.2/src/mat/impls/elemental/matelem.cxx:1: > | In file included from > /Users/goxberry/petsc-3.4.2/include/../src/mat/impls/elemental/matelemimpl.h:5: > | In file included from > /Users/goxberry/petsc-3.4.2/include/petsc-private/matimpl.h:5: > | In file included from /Users/goxberry/petsc-3.4.2/include/petscmat.h:6: > | In file included from /Users/goxberry/petsc-3.4.2/include/petscvec.h:9: > | In file included from /Users/goxberry/petsc-3.4.2/include/petscis.h:7: > | /Users/goxberry/petsc-3.4.2/include/petscsys.h:2325:117: error: expected > ')' > | PETSC_STATIC_INLINE PetscErrorCode PetscSegBufferGetInts(PetscSegBuffer > seg,PetscInt count,PetscInt *PETSC_RESTRICT *slot) {return > PetscSegBufferGet(seg,count,(void**)slot);} > | > ^ > > > Karl fixed this in 'next', but in a branch started from 'master'. We > had a discussion about the design at that point and decided that the > "hack" was messy and error-prone. > > > https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/commits/0a8720703c3660d0eaeec3a29abfe2a9bfa7773f > > > I think Matt's suggestion of two separate files is overkill and not > clearly better. Here is an alternative proposal (which is consistent > with the handling of PETSC_FUNCTION_NAME, which works smoothly). > > > https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/commits/ed938b00aafbc8619c94f12cc845a1c4a3fa2bcd > > You can test by: > > $ git checkout jed/fix-restrict-cxx > $ ./configure ... > > (Actually, you could just delete the definitions of PETSC_RESTRICT and > PETSC_STATIC_INLINE from petscconf.h, then run "make".) > > This branch starts from 'maint' so you won't see any interface changes > in the above. > -- Geoffrey Oxberry, Ph.D., E.I.T.
