On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> Peter Brune <[email protected]> writes: > > > It might be best to just pair things. Prefix matching sounds like a > recipe > > for ripping one's hair out over minutiae. > > Let's ask petsc-dev. > > All, how should we deal with people forgetting to clear dynamic > functions in XXDestroy_YY? > So the rationale for this is when we change backend types? Is it worth anything more than a convention? If so, what about just having a count in PetscObject that gets checked in the teardown process. Matt > > > > - Peter > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Alternatively, we could have a PetscObject function that strips all > >> functions that match a prefix like PCGAMGAgg* or PCGAMG*. > >> > >> Peter Brune <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >> > As I think I said on bitbucket (they're having a massive outage, > >> > apparently), I'm going to create a branch where I make sure that each > >> > composition is paired, because while it looks like this rule was > followed > >> > in TS, it certainly isn't followed anywhere else, and therefore didn't > >> > appear to be a convention. > >> > > >> > - Peter > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Mark Adams <[email protected]> writes: > >> >> > >> >> > I can't read bitbucket anymore. > >> >> > > >> >> > How can I undo: > >> >> > > >> >> > ierr = > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > PetscObjectComposeFunction((PetscObject)pc,"PCSetCoordinates_C",PCSetCoordinates_AGG);CHKERRQ(ierr); > >> >> > >> >> ierr = > >> >> > >> > PetscObjectComposeFunction((PetscObject)pc,"PCSetCoordinates_C",NULL);CHKERRQ(ierr); > >> >> > >> >> just like PCDestroy_FieldSplit, KSPDestroy_GMRES, and hopefully all > >> >> subtype destructors. > >> >> > >> >> > and I'm thinking we can sort of deprecated the PCSetCoordinates > stuff. > >> >> > Lets get ex54 working with PCSetCoordinates and remove it from all > >> other > >> >> > tests. Doing it the right way, with CreateRigidBodyModes solves > >> Peter's > >> >> > desire of getting it out of GAMG. If a user of PCSetCoordinates > >> breaks, > >> >> > when the change something, then we just tell them to update to the > new > >> >> > regime. Old users, like Sanjay G, do not need to be bothered. > >> >> > >> >> Sounds fine to me. > >> >> > >> > -- 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
