Thanks for the quick response. A related question is are examples in the tutorials tested before the release oronly the examples in tests?
Travis===============================Travis Austin, Ph.DVP, Computational MathematicsTech-X Corporation5621 Arapahoe AveBoulder, CO 80303===============================
On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:17 AM, Matthew Knepley <knepley@gmail.com> wrote:On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Travis Austin <austin@txcorp.com> wrote:
Hi,I have been digging into the tutorials directories in PETSc and wanting to understand how the makefile breaks up fortranexamples into TESTEXAMPLES_FORTRAN and TESTEXAMPLES_F90. (This is follow on work from the Tech-X PhaseI related to PETSc.)There appear to be some F90 examples that are mixed in TESTEXAMPLES_FORTRAN. For example, in the snestutorials, I see this:snes/examples/tutorials/makefile:TESTEXAMPLES_FORTRAN = ex1f.PETSc runex1f ex1f.rm ex40f90.PETSc runex40f90 ex40f90.rmIts a mistake.In other places, anything with an f90 in the name is under TESTEXAMPLES_F90.Is there any particular strategy for how files are placed under TESTEXAMPLES_FORTRAN and TESTEXAMPLES_F90?Another related question is that some of the F90 examples have a .F suffix and others have a .F90 suffix which is of courserelated to formatting but my guess is the committer of these files just following their own preferences.(See snes/examples/tutorials/ex39f90.F and ex40f90.F90.)F90 is wrong, another mistake.MattDoes anyone know if there was a reason that ex39f90 was made *.F and ex40f90 was make *.F90? I'm trying to parse someof these examples based on suffixes and different suffixes makes is a bit more cumbersome.Thanks for any help,Travis===============================Travis Austin, Ph.DVP, Computational MathematicsTech-X Corporation5621 Arapahoe AveBoulder, CO 80303===============================
--
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