On Nov 9, 2011, at 4:55 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 16:50, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > We don't usually do things that way hence I think a specific checking > function is better. > > 3 seconds later I like the idea of returning null if it does not exist and > not having the other checking function. Mark me down for the returning null > approach. > > So the concern is what should VecGhostUpdateBegin/End do for non-ghosted > Vecs? In the serial case, there is no harm in doing nothing because in the > usual situation, there are just zero ghosted entries. For user-defined Vecs, > what should happen?
Error in parallel not sequential. > > Should VecGhostUpdateBegin just fail for anything that is not explicitly > ghosted? I don't have a problem using a Vec_MPI in serial so that the > presence of exactly 0 ghosts can be explicit.
