On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:50 AM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com>wrote: > >> Ah, its specialized: >> >> >> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc-dev/src/923de80728797e2783dffed96365fada710347b8/include/petscdmplex.h?at=default#cl-23 >> >> Is there an objection to me promoting this? >> > > Matt, your current implementation is sort of a mix of shallow (with > respect to private DM_Plex stuff) clone and deep/rebuilt (with respect to > DM stuff like defaultSection). I think it's worth making consistent, but > safe sharing semantics are tricky to specify. I think DMDA will be somewhat > involved regardless of the desired semantics. > I think that was justified when PetscSection was just considered data like PetscLayout. However, now that it is an object, we should reconsider. Unfortunately, I think sharing the default section between clone could be very error prone. I am currently using Clone() to share the large mesh data structures in the back end, but do not want any sharing of the sections. I think this would be the common use case. Matt -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130228/5a3c5cc8/attachment.html>
