On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I agree completely with batching of this kind, which is why my > integration > functions look like they do. However, the topology information is not > really needed > in these kernels. Instead you are packing discretization information, like > FEM coefficients, or geometric information like Jacobians, which are > all controlled > by PetscSection, not by the DMComplex. > At the time you call an element residual kernel, you definitely need that information. Now the question is how much should bubble up to higher levels. Because I think topological dimension is an important attribute (I think the library should be able to distinguish tets from quads), I was only proposing using topological dimension more explicitly. Karl suggests one step further in delineating the specific topology. My concern with that is keeping a contiguous index space. If there is sorting by cell topology, you no longer have to store size explicitly for each point in the coneSection. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20121110/ba5b2fd0/attachment.html>
