On Sat, 7 Mar 2020, Jed Brown wrote:
> Satish Balay writes:
>
> > On Fri, 6 Mar 2020, Jed Brown wrote:
> >> PetscInt some,several,variables;
> >>
> >> // code
> >> if (PetscDefined(HAVE_MAGIC)) {
> >> function(several,);
> >> }
> >> use(some,variables);
> >
> > One minor issue:
Satish Balay writes:
>> +1 for the for-loop declarations.
>>
>> No more need to police the use of // C++-style comments?
>
> I think the objection was more about the code style. Mixing both types of
> comments does not look good.
I don't have a problem with // for one-line comments and /* */
Satish Balay writes:
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2020, Jed Brown wrote:
>> PetscInt some,several,variables;
>>
>> // code
>> if (PetscDefined(HAVE_MAGIC)) {
>> function(several,);
>> }
>> use(some,variables);
>
> One minor issue: we haven't yet fixed up clang analyzer build. Likely this
>
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020, Patrick Sanan wrote:
> Perhaps naively, I‘d assume that while there may well be someone out there
> relying on compilers for which this would be a problem, that same person is
> also less likely to be able to upgrade PETSc.
>
> The benefits seem well worth it. It‘ll make
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020, Jed Brown wrote:
> I have a question for petsc-dev: Do you know anyone who needs to build
> PETSc with a compiler that doesn't support variadic macros and for-loop
> declarations? (Both of these are in C99 and C++11, and supported by all
> tested configurations including
Perhaps naively, I‘d assume that while there may well be someone out there
relying on compilers for which this would be a problem, that same person is
also less likely to be able to upgrade PETSc.
The benefits seem well worth it. It‘ll make things just that much easier to
work with.
+1 for the
