On Tue, 12 Mar 2013, John Peterson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Roy Stogner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > For problems with lots of variables it should be a tiny bit more > > efficient to just test the DofObject::processor_id(); we never put > > dofs on a processor other than the one where their DofObject lives. > > OK, good, wasn't totally sure about this.
Fair enough - I'm not sure we document it anywhere, and there's no way to distinguish between "undocumented features that we support" and "undocumented features that we'll break some day". I can't think of any reason we could ever want to change this behavior, though. Can anyone else? If not then I should go in and add documentation to dof_object.h to let everyone know we won't break this on purpose, and asserts to dof_map.C to make sure we don't break it on accident. --- Roy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report. http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Libmesh-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-users
