dolfin team mailing list archive

[Matthew Knepley <knepley@xxxxxxxxx>]

Is there a problem with doing it the way PETSc does, namely
two arguments, either of which can be a default (to be determined value)?

  Matt

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Garth N. Wells <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
> Ola Skavhaug wrote:
> > The way the GenericVector interface is implemented, a size argument to
> > the constructor will partition the vector on every process in
> > parallel. We need to be able to allocate locally sized vectors. Should
> > I simply use a non-parallel aware linear algebra backend for this,
> > like uBLAS? This will introduce a mix of different linear algebra
> > backends, and I'm not sure what problems lurk i the shadows if I go
> > down that road :)
> >
> > An alternative would be to add functionality (default argument?) to
> > specify scope when calling resize and friends.
> >
>
> I think that we need an argument to specify the local size of a vector
> since this will vary across processes.
>
> Garth
>
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
>



-- 
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