November 2009 - petsc-dev - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: PETSC_ARCH variable --> PETSC_CONF
by Barry Smith 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

The problem is that we cannot demand that every PETSc user install a decent version of gnu make. Some systems have their own strange make and getting users to install gnu make and get PETSc to use it is asking too much. Barry On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Boyana Norris wrote: > Actually GNU make features are the only reason I continue to touch > make -- without them I would not use it for anything. > > Boyana > > -- > Boyana Norris, Computer Scientist, Argonne National Laboratory > norris(a)mcs.anl.gov, +1.630.252.7908, http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~norris/ > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Barry Smith wrote: > >> >> Boyana, >> >> We are going to stop using make before we ever start using GNU >> make features :-) >> >> Barry >> >> On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:23 PM, Boyana Norris wrote: >> >>> >>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Barry Smith wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Boyana Norris wrote: >>>> >>>>> Why not recognize both? It's fairly trivial to check for >>>>> PETSC_CONF if PETSC_ARCH is undefined and internally define >>>>> PETSC_ARCH using PETSC_CONF. >>>> >>>> This is a make variable. I am not sure that it is trivial to >>>> check if a variable is set and use something else otherwise in a >>>> tidy way in make. Plus I had the idea of having two variables >>>> that mean the same thing. >>> >>> There are a couple of different ways, e.g., one is >>> >>> ifndef PETSC_ARCH >>> ifdef PETSC_CONF >>> PETSC_ARCH=$(PETSC_CONF) >>> else >>> $(error "Make sure the PETSC_CONF environment variable is defined >>> before running make.") >>> endif >>> endif >>> >>> This is for GNU make, which is pretty widely available, and may >>> have to be adjusted for ancient systems. >>> >>> Boyana >>> >>>> >>>> Barry >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Boyana >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Boyana Norris, Computer Scientist, Argonne National Laboratory >>>>> norris(a)mcs.anl.gov, +1.630.252.7908, http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~norris/ >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Barry Smith >>>>>> <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess the argument is that on occasion in the future a >>>>>> certain number of people will misinterpret the meaning of >>>>>> PETSC_ARCH frustrating them and us; the number misinterpreting >>>>>> PETSC_CONF will be much smaller or zero saving people's time >>>>>> and energy. >>>>>> >>>>>> This will be far outweighed by the number of people complaining >>>>>> about such a change. I agree with them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Matt >>>>>> >>>>>> Barry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I see the point, but this is one of the oldest parts of PETSc, >>>>>> and I am hesitant to change one >>>>>> arbitrary name to another without a more convincing reason. >>>>>> >>>>>> Matt >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Barry Smith >>>>>> <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Lisandro has pointed out to me several times that the variable >>>>>> name PETSC_ARCH can be confusing; some people may think it is >>>>>> related to the architecture of the machine and don't understand >>>>>> that it is an arbitrary name that the user can make up. He >>>>>> suggested changing it to PETSC_CONF to be clearer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Should we change it? Use something else? >>>>>> >>>>>> Barry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >

1 0

Re: PETSC_ARCH variable --> PETSC_CONF
by Boyana Norris 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

Actually GNU make features are the only reason I continue to touch make -- without them I would not use it for anything. Boyana -- Boyana Norris, Computer Scientist, Argonne National Laboratory norris(a)mcs.anl.gov, +1.630.252.7908, http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~norris/ On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Barry Smith wrote: > > Boyana, > > We are going to stop using make before we ever start using GNU > make features :-) > > Barry > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:23 PM, Boyana Norris wrote: > >> >> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Barry Smith wrote: >> >>> >>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Boyana Norris wrote: >>> >>>> Why not recognize both? It's fairly trivial to check for >>>> PETSC_CONF if PETSC_ARCH is undefined and internally define >>>> PETSC_ARCH using PETSC_CONF. >>> >>> This is a make variable. I am not sure that it is trivial to check >>> if a variable is set and use something else otherwise in a tidy >>> way in make. Plus I had the idea of having two variables that mean >>> the same thing. >> >> There are a couple of different ways, e.g., one is >> >> ifndef PETSC_ARCH >> ifdef PETSC_CONF >> PETSC_ARCH=$(PETSC_CONF) >> else >> $(error "Make sure the PETSC_CONF environment variable is defined >> before running make.") >> endif >> endif >> >> This is for GNU make, which is pretty widely available, and may >> have to be adjusted for ancient systems. >> >> Boyana >> >>> >>> Barry >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Boyana >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boyana Norris, Computer Scientist, Argonne National Laboratory >>>> norris(a)mcs.anl.gov, +1.630.252.7908, http://www.mcs.anl.gov/ >>>> ~norris/ >>>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Barry Smith >>>>> <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I guess the argument is that on occasion in the future a certain >>>>> number of people will misinterpret the meaning of PETSC_ARCH >>>>> frustrating them and us; the number misinterpreting PETSC_CONF >>>>> will be much smaller or zero saving people's time and energy. >>>>> >>>>> This will be far outweighed by the number of people complaining >>>>> about such a change. I agree with them. >>>>> >>>>> Matt >>>>> >>>>> Barry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I see the point, but this is one of the oldest parts of PETSc, >>>>> and I am hesitant to change one >>>>> arbitrary name to another without a more convincing reason. >>>>> >>>>> Matt >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Barry Smith >>>>> <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Lisandro has pointed out to me several times that the variable >>>>> name PETSC_ARCH can be confusing; some people may think it is >>>>> related to the architecture of the machine and don't understand >>>>> that it is an arbitrary name that the user can make up. He >>>>> suggested changing it to PETSC_CONF to be clearer. >>>>> >>>>> Should we change it? Use something else? >>>>> >>>>> Barry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >> >

1 0

Re: PETSC_ARCH variable --> PETSC_CONF
by Barry Smith 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

Boyana, We are going to stop using make before we ever start using GNU make features :-) Barry On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:23 PM, Boyana Norris wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Barry Smith wrote: > >> >> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Boyana Norris wrote: >> >>> Why not recognize both? It's fairly trivial to check for >>> PETSC_CONF if PETSC_ARCH is undefined and internally define >>> PETSC_ARCH using PETSC_CONF. >> >> This is a make variable. I am not sure that it is trivial to check >> if a variable is set and use something else otherwise in a tidy way >> in make. Plus I had the idea of having two variables that mean the >> same thing. > > There are a couple of different ways, e.g., one is > > ifndef PETSC_ARCH > ifdef PETSC_CONF > PETSC_ARCH=$(PETSC_CONF) > else > $(error "Make sure the PETSC_CONF environment variable is defined > before running make.") > endif > endif > > This is for GNU make, which is pretty widely available, and may have > to be adjusted for ancient systems. > > Boyana > >> >> Barry >> >> >>> >>> Boyana >>> >>> -- >>> Boyana Norris, Computer Scientist, Argonne National Laboratory >>> norris(a)mcs.anl.gov, +1.630.252.7908, http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~norris/ >>> >>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I guess the argument is that on occasion in the future a certain >>>> number of people will misinterpret the meaning of PETSC_ARCH >>>> frustrating them and us; the number misinterpreting PETSC_CONF >>>> will be much smaller or zero saving people's time and energy. >>>> >>>> This will be far outweighed by the number of people complaining >>>> about such a change. I agree with them. >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> >>>> Barry >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: >>>> >>>> I see the point, but this is one of the oldest parts of PETSc, >>>> and I am hesitant to change one >>>> arbitrary name to another without a more convincing reason. >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Lisandro has pointed out to me several times that the variable >>>> name PETSC_ARCH can be confusing; some people may think it is >>>> related to the architecture of the machine and don't understand >>>> that it is an arbitrary name that the user can make up. He >>>> suggested changing it to PETSC_CONF to be clearer. >>>> >>>> Should we change it? Use something else? >>>> >>>> Barry >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>> >> >

1 0

Re: PETSC_ARCH variable --> PETSC_CONF
by Boyana Norris 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Barry Smith wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Boyana Norris wrote: > >> Why not recognize both? It's fairly trivial to check for PETSC_CONF >> if PETSC_ARCH is undefined and internally define PETSC_ARCH using >> PETSC_CONF. > > This is a make variable. I am not sure that it is trivial to check > if a variable is set and use something else otherwise in a tidy way > in make. Plus I had the idea of having two variables that mean the > same thing. There are a couple of different ways, e.g., one is ifndef PETSC_ARCH ifdef PETSC_CONF PETSC_ARCH=$(PETSC_CONF) else $(error "Make sure the PETSC_CONF environment variable is defined before running make.") endif endif This is for GNU make, which is pretty widely available, and may have to be adjusted for ancient systems. Boyana > > Barry > > >> >> Boyana >> >> -- >> Boyana Norris, Computer Scientist, Argonne National Laboratory >> norris(a)mcs.anl.gov, +1.630.252.7908, http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~norris/ >> >> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I guess the argument is that on occasion in the future a certain >>> number of people will misinterpret the meaning of PETSC_ARCH >>> frustrating them and us; the number misinterpreting PETSC_CONF >>> will be much smaller or zero saving people's time and energy. >>> >>> This will be far outweighed by the number of people complaining >>> about such a change. I agree with them. >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> Barry >>> >>> >>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: >>> >>> I see the point, but this is one of the oldest parts of PETSc, and >>> I am hesitant to change one >>> arbitrary name to another without a more convincing reason. >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Lisandro has pointed out to me several times that the variable >>> name PETSC_ARCH can be confusing; some people may think it is >>> related to the architecture of the machine and don't understand >>> that it is an arbitrary name that the user can make up. He >>> suggested changing it to PETSC_CONF to be clearer. >>> >>> Should we change it? Use something else? >>> >>> Barry >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> >

1 0

Re: PETSC_ARCH variable --> PETSC_CONF
by Barry Smith 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Boyana Norris wrote: > Why not recognize both? It's fairly trivial to check for PETSC_CONF > if PETSC_ARCH is undefined and internally define PETSC_ARCH using > PETSC_CONF. This is a make variable. I am not sure that it is trivial to check if a variable is set and use something else otherwise in a tidy way in make. Plus I had the idea of having two variables that mean the same thing. Barry > > Boyana > > -- > Boyana Norris, Computer Scientist, Argonne National Laboratory > norris(a)mcs.anl.gov, +1.630.252.7908, http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~norris/ > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> >> wrote: >> >> I guess the argument is that on occasion in the future a certain >> number of people will misinterpret the meaning of PETSC_ARCH >> frustrating them and us; the number misinterpreting PETSC_CONF will >> be much smaller or zero saving people's time and energy. >> >> This will be far outweighed by the number of people complaining >> about such a change. I agree with them. >> >> Matt >> >> Barry >> >> >> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: >> >> I see the point, but this is one of the oldest parts of PETSc, and >> I am hesitant to change one >> arbitrary name to another without a more convincing reason. >> >> Matt >> >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> >> wrote: >> >> Lisandro has pointed out to me several times that the variable >> name PETSC_ARCH can be confusing; some people may think it is >> related to the architecture of the machine and don't understand >> that it is an arbitrary name that the user can make up. He >> suggested changing it to PETSC_CONF to be clearer. >> >> Should we change it? Use something else? >> >> Barry >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >

1 0

Re: PETSC_ARCH variable --> PETSC_CONF
by Boyana Norris 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

Why not recognize both? It's fairly trivial to check for PETSC_CONF if PETSC_ARCH is undefined and internally define PETSC_ARCH using PETSC_CONF. Boyana -- Boyana Norris, Computer Scientist, Argonne National Laboratory norris(a)mcs.anl.gov, +1.630.252.7908, http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~norris/ On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> > wrote: > > I guess the argument is that on occasion in the future a certain > number of people will misinterpret the meaning of PETSC_ARCH > frustrating them and us; the number misinterpreting PETSC_CONF will > be much smaller or zero saving people's time and energy. > > This will be far outweighed by the number of people complaining > about such a change. I agree with them. > > Matt > > Barry > > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > I see the point, but this is one of the oldest parts of PETSc, and I > am hesitant to change one > arbitrary name to another without a more convincing reason. > > Matt > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> > wrote: > > Lisandro has pointed out to me several times that the variable name > PETSC_ARCH can be confusing; some people may think it is related to > the architecture of the machine and don't understand that it is an > arbitrary name that the user can make up. He suggested changing it > to PETSC_CONF to be clearer. > > Should we change it? Use something else? > > Barry > > > > > -- > 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 > > > > > -- > 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

1 0

Re: PETSC_ARCH variable --> PETSC_CONF
by Matthew Knepley 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > I guess the argument is that on occasion in the future a certain number > of people will misinterpret the meaning of PETSC_ARCH frustrating them and > us; the number misinterpreting PETSC_CONF will be much smaller or zero > saving people's time and energy. > This will be far outweighed by the number of people complaining about such a change. I agree with them. Matt > Barry > > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > I see the point, but this is one of the oldest parts of PETSc, and I am >> hesitant to change one >> arbitrary name to another without a more convincing reason. >> >> Matt >> >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> >> Lisandro has pointed out to me several times that the variable name >> PETSC_ARCH can be confusing; some people may think it is related to the >> architecture of the machine and don't understand that it is an arbitrary >> name that the user can make up. He suggested changing it to PETSC_CONF to be >> clearer. >> >> Should we change it? Use something else? >> >> Barry >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> > > -- 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

1 0

Re: PETSC_ARCH variable --> PETSC_CONF
by Barry Smith 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

I guess the argument is that on occasion in the future a certain number of people will misinterpret the meaning of PETSC_ARCH frustrating them and us; the number misinterpreting PETSC_CONF will be much smaller or zero saving people's time and energy. Barry On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > I see the point, but this is one of the oldest parts of PETSc, and I > am hesitant to change one > arbitrary name to another without a more convincing reason. > > Matt > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> > wrote: > > Lisandro has pointed out to me several times that the variable > name PETSC_ARCH can be confusing; some people may think it is > related to the architecture of the machine and don't understand that > it is an arbitrary name that the user can make up. He suggested > changing it to PETSC_CONF to be clearer. > > Should we change it? Use something else? > > Barry > > > > > -- > 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

1 0

Re: PETSC_ARCH variable --> PETSC_CONF
by Matthew Knepley 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

I see the point, but this is one of the oldest parts of PETSc, and I am hesitant to change one arbitrary name to another without a more convincing reason. Matt On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > Lisandro has pointed out to me several times that the variable name > PETSC_ARCH can be confusing; some people may think it is related to the > architecture of the machine and don't understand that it is an arbitrary > name that the user can make up. He suggested changing it to PETSC_CONF to be > clearer. > > Should we change it? Use something else? > > Barry > > -- 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

1 0

PETSC_ARCH variable --> PETSC_CONF
by Barry Smith 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

Lisandro has pointed out to me several times that the variable name PETSC_ARCH can be confusing; some people may think it is related to the architecture of the machine and don't understand that it is an arbitrary name that the user can make up. He suggested changing it to PETSC_CONF to be clearer. Should we change it? Use something else? Barry

1 0