On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Mark Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> >>> Send the command that you used to create the branch. >>> >>> >> Matt, I just cloned PETSc/master. I did not create any branches. >> > > 1) Cloning just creates a repository structure. You have to keep pulling > to get things up to date. > > 2) You are always working on a branch, no matter what you cloned. You can > see the branch that > you are on using 'git branch' (it is the one with the star). > > 3) A branch is a list of commits. The 'branch' command makes a new line > from this list starting at the > current commit (so that you have a tree). Thus, when you type "branch" > there is an implicit a) branch > you are on, and b) current commit. We are just trying to get those > right. > Let me summarize what I did (and showed the raw output in my original email) on a branch named master that is from a relatively new clone: > git pull origin master > git status --> 7 commits ahead of master > git commit ... // first commit of mine on this clone > git status --> 8 commits ahead of master So it looks like I have 7 mystery commits but I did not do them. How did they get there? What are they? I may have checkout maint in this clone, but I did not create any branches. Thanks, Mark > > Thanks, > > Matt > > >> Thanks, >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> >>>> Anyway, I've blown it away and am starting with a fresh clone. >>>> >>>> Thanks again, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Matt >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Mark >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Matt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> from another branch, at least I did not knowingly. I am tempted to >>>>>>>> just start with a fresh clone and redo this whole thing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is going on here? Did I sleep walk last night and pull from >>>>>>>> next? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can I just push this to master (I tested it and it is a trivial >>>>>>>> change) or should I reclone. etc.? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mark >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 19:10 edison03 master ~/petsc$ git status >>>>>>>> # On branch master >>>>>>>> # Your branch is ahead of 'origin/master' by 7 commits. >>>>>>>> # >>>>>>>> # Changes not staged for commit: >>>>>>>> # (use "git add <file>..." to update what will be committed) >>>>>>>> # (use "git checkout -- <file>..." to discard changes in working >>>>>>>> directory) >>>>>>>> # >>>>>>>> # modified: >>>>>>>> src/ksp/pc/impls/fieldsplit/ftn-custom/zfieldsplitf.c >>>>>>>> # >>>>>>>> no changes added to commit (use "git add" and/or "git commit -a") >>>>>>>> 19:10 edison03 master ~/petsc$ git commit >>>>>>>> src/ksp/pc/impls/fieldsplit/ftn-custom/zfieldsplitf.c -m"fixed memory >>>>>>>> leak" >>>>>>>> [master d4dcd7b] fixed memory leak >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>>>>>> 19:10 edison03 master ~/petsc$ git pull origin master >>>>>>>> From https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc >>>>>>>> * branch master -> FETCH_HEAD >>>>>>>> Already up-to-date. >>>>>>>> 19:11 edison03 master ~/petsc$ git status >>>>>>>> # On branch master >>>>>>>> # Your branch is ahead of 'origin/master' by 8 commits. >>>>>>>> # >>>>>>>> nothing to commit (working directory clean) >>>>>>>> 19:11 edison03 master ~/petsc$ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Mark Adams <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is coming from this line (last): >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> #undef __FUNCT__ >>>>>>>>> #define __FUNCT__ "PCFieldSplitGetSubKSP_FieldSplit_Schur" >>>>>>>>> static PetscErrorCode PCFieldSplitGetSubKSP_FieldSplit_Schur(PC >>>>>>>>> pc,PetscInt *n,KSP **subksp) >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> PC_FieldSplit *jac = (PC_FieldSplit*)pc->data; >>>>>>>>> PetscErrorCode ierr; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PetscFunctionBegin; >>>>>>>>> ierr = PetscMalloc1(jac->nsplits,subksp);CHKERRQ(ierr); >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I call it with: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> KSP::subksp(2) >>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>> PCFieldSplitGetSubKSP(solver%pc,PETSC_NULL_INTEGER,subksp,ierr) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Fortran wrapper is: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PETSC_EXTERN void PETSC_STDCALL pcfieldsplitgetsubksp_(PC >>>>>>>>> *pc,PetscInt *n_local,KSP *ksp,PetscErrorCode *ierr) >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> KSP *tksp; >>>>>>>>> PetscInt i,nloc; >>>>>>>>> CHKFORTRANNULLINTEGER(n_local); >>>>>>>>> *ierr = PCFieldSplitGetSubKSP(*pc,&nloc,&tksp); if (*ierr) >>>>>>>>> return; >>>>>>>>> if (n_local) *n_local = nloc; >>>>>>>>> CHKFORTRANNULLOBJECT(ksp); >>>>>>>>> if (ksp) { >>>>>>>>> for (i=0; i<nloc; i++) ksp[i] = tksp[i]; >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Should I just add a PetscFree(&tksp) here? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Mark Adams <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Barry Smith <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Need more details. How can we reproduce this? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I was hoping this would be obvious. a missed free. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What tests use Schur solvers? I could see if they have the same >>>>>>>>>> problem. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Barry >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > On May 30, 2015, at 7:10 PM, Mark Adams <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > This look like there might be a memory leak in PETSc. Let me >>>>>>>>>>> know if this is not obvious and get more detail. >>>>>>>>>>> > Mark >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > [0]Total space allocated 16 bytes >>>>>>>>>>> > [ 0]16 bytes PCFieldSplitGetSubKSP_FieldSplit_Schur() line >>>>>>>>>>> 1263 in >>>>>>>>>>> /global/u2/m/madams/petsc/src/ksp/pc/impls/fieldsplit/fieldsplit.c >>>>>>>>>>> > [0] PCFieldSplitGetSubKSP_FieldSplit_Schur() line 1263 >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> /global/u2/m/madams/petsc/src/ksp/pc/impls/fieldsplit/fieldsplit.c >>>>>>>>>>> > [0] PCFieldSplitGetSubKSP() line 1665 in >>>>>>>>>>> /global/u2/m/madams/petsc/src/ksp/pc/impls/fieldsplit/fieldsplit.c >>>>>>>>>>> > [0] KSPSetUp() line 247 in >>>>>>>>>>> /global/u2/m/madams/petsc/src/ksp/ksp/interface/itfunc.c >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >
