On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:58:08PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 31/05/10 13:50, Anders Logg wrote: > >On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:17:15PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >>At the moment, a linear solver is not associated with a particular > >>matrix. This makes it awkward and dangerous to re-use > >>preconditioners, factorisations, etc. I suggest that we change the > >>interface of the linear solver classes to accept a matrix at > >>construction, and that the solvers maintain a (smart) pointer to the > >>matrix. Opinions? > > > >It feels awkward to associate a linear solver with a specific system. > > > > Why is that? All our la backends do it. It seems natural to me since > solving a linear system involves a number of data structures which > are specific to the matrix.
Would would the interface look like? LinearSolver solver(A); solver.parameters["preconditioner"] = "amg"; solver.solve(x, b); ? x = solver.solve(b); ? The other option would be to introduce a class LinearSystem: LinearSystem system(A, b); x = system.solve(); That would be analogous to VariationalProblem: VariationalProblem problem(a, L); u = problem.solve() Looks like there are three options: 1. LinearSolver / VariationalSolver 2. LinearSystem / VariationalProblem 3. Both 1 and 2 -- Anders > Garth > > >One option would be to have both Problem and Solver classes for linear > >systems. > > > >This is also related to the following blueprint that addresses the > >issue of the inconsistency between the interfaces for linear systems > >and variational problems: > > > > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/dolfin/+spec/solver-interfaces > > >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
