On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, John Peterson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Roy Stogner <royst...@ices.utexas.edu> wrote:
Okay, instead of this:
---
if (!elem->old_dof_object ||
!elem->old_dof_object->has_dofs(system.number()))
continue;
---
Try this:
---
bool missing_old_dofs = !elem->old_dof_object ||
(elem->has_dofs(system.number()) &&
!elem->old_dof_object->has_dofs(system.number())); for (n = 0;
!missing_old_dofs && n != elem->n_nodes(); ++n)
{
Node *node = elem->get_node(n);
missing_old_dofs = !node->old_dof_object ||
(node->has_dofs(system.number()) &&
!node->old_dof_object->has_dofs(system.number()));
{
if (missing_old_dofs)
continue;
I will try this in our tests and let you know what happens.
As John just discovered, this doesn't work.
I just discovered why:
DofMap::reinit(), when encountering a DofObject that has no Dofs on
it, doesn't even *bother* to set_old_dof_object. So that very first
elem->old_dof_object is NULL, and we still think we're missing old
dofs even though we aren't.
I'm reverting the patch until we get a better test figured out for
newly-added elements. There are a *lot* of transient adaptive codes
that could get burned by this bug.
---
Roy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
A question and answer guide to determining the best fit
for your organization - today and in the future.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
_______________________________________________
Libmesh-devel mailing list
Libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
