On May 19, 2010, at 4:22 PM, Roy Stogner wrote: > Potential new inefficiency in rare user codes: if the user wants to > call his normal assembly function, but then assemble in additional > terms before using the result, a close() in between would be > unnecessary extra communications.
Would this really be the case? I thought NumericVector kept track of whether or not it was closed and wouldn't redo communication. Certainly I can't imagine Petsc redoing communication if you close a vector twice (what would it communicate the second time?). Personally... we manually call close() all the time.... just to make sure after we've modified something. It wouldn't bother me to do it some more... Derek ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Libmesh-devel mailing list Libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
