Re: PETSc-FUN3D Code

[Barry Smith <bsmith@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

  Satish,

   I don't know; there are pros and cons to the two
approaches. 

   Why not PetscSize_T? I admit both look stupid, but the
_ at least matches the standard C style.

  Any comments from the community?

  Barry



    I would like to keep size_t as the argument

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Satish Balay wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Dinesh Kaushik wrote:
> 
> > > > Perhaps need a PetscSizeT or some new datatype for this purpose that
> > > > gets set correct for both C & fortran side..
> 
> Barry,
> 
> Is it ok to do this change? The prototypes of the following functions
> will need to be changed to use PetscSizeT instead of size_t;
> 
> [alternative is to use size_t on the C side - but PetscSizeT on the
> fortran side - but this is inconsistant]
> 
> thanks,
> Satish
> 
> -------------------
> PetscBagCreate
> PetscFileRetrieve
> PetscGetArchType
> PetscGetDate
> PetscGetDisplay
> PetscGetFullPath
> PetscGetHomeDirectory
> PetscGetHostName
> PetscGetProgramName
> PetscGetRelativePath
> PetscGetTmp
> PetscGetUserName
> PetscGetWorkingDirectory
> PetscLs
> PetscMalloc
> PetscMalloc2
> PetscMalloc3
> PetscMalloc4
> PetscMalloc5
> PetscMalloc6
> PetscMalloc7
> PetscMemcmp
> PetscMemcpy
> PetscMemmove
> PetscMemzero
> PetscOptionsGetenv
> PetscOptionsGetString
> PetscOptionsString
> PetscSetMalloc
> PetscSNPrintf
> PetscStrlen
> PetscStrncat
> PetscStrncmp
> PetscStrncpy
> PetscStrreplace
> PetscSynchronizedFGets
> PetscVSNPrintf
> 
>