On Dec 15, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Barry Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > Matt, > > WHEN do you want the viewing to be done? That is where the > DMViewFromOptions() should be called, and you should move it there. Surely > you don’t wish to view the DM in DMSetFromOptions() where presumably nothing > is setup? Note that in analogy, MatViewFromOptions() is called in > MatAssemblyEnd(). > > Since we are going to allow XXXViewFromOptions() to be turned off with a > master switch for performance, we can just put it were we want it and don’t > need to call it one place and then use the resulting viewer somewhere else. > > For now, I would like to remove it from DMSetUp() where it has no meaning, > and just make the user put it in manually. > Is that alright? Yes, it can also go into the end of DMSetUp_DA(). Is there some concept of a DMAssemblyEnd() stage where one knows that the DM truly is ready to go? Should there be? Barry > > Thanks, > > Matt > > > Barry > > On Dec 14, 2013, at 11:15 PM, Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The move to DMSetUp() has broken every DMPlex test. The full mesh > > is usually not constructed at DMSetUp(), which just allocates memory. > > This is analogous to MatSetUp(), for which we do not expect values to > > be set. > > > > I don't think the ViewFromOptions call makes sense in DMSetUp() and > > think it should be moved back to SetFromOptions. > > > > 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 > > > > > -- > 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
