dolfin team mailing list archive

["Garth N. Wells" <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx>]

Matthew Knepley wrote:
> 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)?

No. The point is that we don't at the moment have implemented a 
GenericVector constructor which accepts two arguments.

Garth

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