On Fri, 20 Jul 2012, Cody Permann wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Roy Stogner wrote:
What's the reason why we need a separate print_trace() at
parameters.C:441? Shouldn't the libmesh_error() be throwing an
exception which takes you to the libmesh_terminate_handler(
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Roy Stogner wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012, Cody Permann wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Roy Stogner
>> wrote:
>>
>> What's the reason why we need a separate print_trace() at
>> parameters.C:441? Shouldn't the libmesh_error() be throwing
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012, Cody Permann wrote:
> Why not print a trace to the screen when encountering an error and
> running serially, but failing back to the current trace files
> behavior when running in parallel?
I can't *believe* I didn't think of that.
Sounds like a pretty unform improvement, s
On 7/20/12 3:17 PM, "Roy Stogner" wrote:
>> Why not print a trace to the screen when encountering an error and
>> running serially, but failing back to the current trace files
>> behavior when running in parallel?
>
> I can't *believe* I didn't think of that.
Don't be so hard on yourself - base
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012, Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG311) wrote:
> On 7/20/12 3:17 PM, "Roy Stogner" wrote:
>
>>> Why not print a trace to the screen when encountering an error and
>>> running serially, but failing back to the current trace files
>>> behavior when running in parallel?
>>
>> I can't *belie
