Also if you don't want to be part of the mailing list [with public discussion and public archives] you can send emails to petsc-maint@mcs... Satish On Fri, 22 Mar 2013, Karl Rupp wrote:
Hi Antoine,
alright, in such case you better unsubscribe from petsc-dev, as these types of discussions are common here. You got my email regarding the ViennaCL-interface in PETSc, didn't you?
Best regards, Karli
On 03/22/2013 10:17 AM, Reymond, Antoine wrote:
Sorry but I am not sure I need to be in all these communications.
*Antoine Reymond*
Sr. Strategic Alliances Manager
AMD Professional Graphics
O: +(1) 949 336 6244 M: +(1) 949 870 2200
52324A_FireProTechLogo_S_E s Visit us at: Twitter <https://twitter.com/AMDFirePro>| amd.com <http://www.fireprographics.com/>
*From:*[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Mark F. Adams *Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2013 8:15 AM *To:* For users of the development version of PETSc *Subject:* Re: [petsc-dev] petsc/petsc added -pc_use_amat option to PCSetFromOptions() (commit b9ee023)
On Mar 21, 2013, at 10:07 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Barry Smith <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Why isn't this `PetscOptionsList()` so that it shows up in `-help`?
My mistake, I cut and pasted the PetscOptionsGetInt() from the line above and figure that it mustn't be in a PetscOptionsBegin{} phase. You can fix it if you like.
Hmm, problem is deeper than that. If the method has no sub-solver, wouldn't we rather not be checking this option, so that it shows up as an unused option?
I thought the primary mission of options_left was to catch spelling mistakes.
(This is also useful if a PC logically ought to pay attention to this option, but isn't.) What about making PCSetUseAmat() use PetscTryMethod() and move the check of "-pc_use_amat" into each implementation?
I agree with Barry that it should be high level and make it there for any PC to use if they want.
Do we really want to leave the confusing option in place for all the PCs that don't have inner solvers?
It just doesn't seem that bad to me.