> On Nov 16, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > Barry Smith <[email protected]> writes: >> Out goal is that if something won't fit in a 32 bit int we use a 64 >> bit integer when possible or at least produce a very useful error >> message instead of the horrible malloc error you get. The more >> crashes you can give us the quicker we can fix these errors. > > This feels like something that we should be able to find with static > analysis, though I don't know how since many of the problems are a > consequence of unsuffixed numeric literals having type "int". > > What if we compiled for an I16LP32 architecture (emulator) so we could > find these problems at small scale?
Or defined PetscInt to be short for test runs?
