[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: warn message in log summary
- To: petsc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: warn message in log summary
- From: "Lisandro Dalcin" <dalcinl@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:28:50 -0300
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=w4+sQq4WmE85ZfWmAkrQ2BGYuemiDB85Gm/kKP2BJ6E=; b=QOKxzv5PdhV1FyhhOezcGzitSHVoSnpVsH6mQSuTdZg8+CRx9AuqU9vCIhf6xIZL3Hjv2DkNgriMt+5zdSpW6HMP3rx43Q57N30QeOmo6uggowsUCJohDO93KwYtwNTTrI2Ohb3LHk9Y0l+TzRN904b3NoVMosW/L2ZlNQHWAAQ=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=dPFHL6mPtxtlJtpRtPp0Xm83dP4V7eep1goOKRbMqxmEZ0+WqrImZMonqCSpAUZnmQKYBeMnYirl4dTyljjucDMWJqTMXW3iOe2iUSVpLKOnI/h2o+8VOrhA5BbaJFWf/9doZp2o4SgsPSbzRN5g6Lm8/xyDtxYoH2kw4XUcWIU=
- In-reply-to: <a9f269830712061946u4a7dafa2n941566ba0ead1257@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <e7ba66e40711241525l64e1258al9464a18eb8544000@mail.gmail.com> <78A39F37-4BAA-4AE4-B585-07896D96ECFA@mcs.anl.gov> <e7ba66e40711260820p3dd29eafr6067ff2c3fca603f@mail.gmail.com> <474AF395.4010905@ornl.gov> <e7ba66e40711260903r6fe9844bwb4c76d5f230355e3@mail.gmail.com> <DB3D289E-9022-4FBC-BF70-6A1B07D90764@mcs.anl.gov> <e7ba66e40711261419r1fea439dh6fbdfc81b97373e2@mail.gmail.com> <AEB5937E-70FF-49DF-98E9-D1FC16D9BDE1@mcs.anl.gov> <a9f269830712061946u4a7dafa2n941566ba0ead1257@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: petsc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-petsc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
On 12/7/07, Matthew Knepley <knepley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2007 9:00 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I am very nervous about mixing a catastrophic error handling system
> > WITH an exception system. I'd like to go back to the model:
> > "once seterrq() is called ANYWHERE there is no possibility of
> > continuing the program.
>
> I guess I have the opposite opinion. I think it is inevitable that PETSc
> is rewritten at some point in the future. At that point, we would replace
> the current, imperfect exception system with a better one. This way we
> can preserve a good design. If we go the other way, all that code will
> have to be rethought instead of just rewritten.
>
I'm on Matt's side. Have you ever considered C++ for implementing
PETSc internals?
--
Lisandro Dalcín
---------------
Centro Internacional de Métodos Computacionales en Ingeniería (CIMEC)
Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Industria Química (INTEC)
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)
PTLC - Güemes 3450, (3000) Santa Fe, Argentina
Tel/Fax: +54-(0)342-451.1594