dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 02:17:29PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> On Friday September 30 2011 14:12:37 Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:25:16PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> > > On Friday September 30 2011 09:56:41 Anders Logg wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 08:05:21AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> > > > > On Friday September 30 2011 07:26:16 noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > revno: 6319
> > > > > > committer: Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > branch nick: work
> > > > > > timestamp: Fri 2011-09-30 16:23:08 +0200
> > > > > >
> > > > > > message:
> > > > > >   Add options finalize_tensor/finalize_tensors to Python assemble
> > > > > >
> > > > > > functions. Note change of name of option reset_sparsity -->
> > > > > > reset_sparsities for assemble_system for consistency with option
> > > > > > name in
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe change back to reset_sparsity for both functions instead, as
> > > > > the sparsity pattern only is built for Matrices?
> > > >
> > > > I thought about it but noticed that init_global_tensor is called for
> > > > both so "reset_sparsities" is consistent with "finalize_tensors".
> > >
> > > Yes, but the SpartistyPatternBuilder::build just build a sparsity pattern
> > > for Tensors with rank 2 or larger.
> >
> > Yes, but it may potentially do so.
> >
> > Anyway, perhaps it is more important to keep the arguments to the two
> > assemble functions as similar as possible. So we change to
> > reset_sparsity and finalize_tensor for both arguments in all assemble
> > functions.
>
> Yes I initially thought of this too, but the other arguments differ so much
> anyhow so I was not sure the point was valid, but I guess it still is.
>
> > ok?
>
> Yes!

Done + the other changes discussed earlier: making assemble_foo
functions public and add PETScMatrix::apply("flush").

--
Anders