On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:48 AM, John O'Sullivan < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Matt, > > I's just wondering if you'd had a chance to do the Fortran interface for > SNESSetUpdate? > I don't know how to do this one since we overhauled our Fortran callbacks. Jed or Satish? > Also what would you guys recommend for interrupting SNESSolve? For example > when the solution vector is outside the range for the RHS function that can > be evaluated. > I think the new scheme is to return a NaN. Is that right Barry? Matt > Cheers > John > > -- > Dr John O'Sullivan > Lecturer > Department of Engineering Science > University of Auckland, New Zealand > email: jp.osullivan at auckland.ac.nz > <https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/petsc-dev> > tel: +64 (0)9 923 85353 > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] [[email protected]] on > behalf of Matthew Knepley [[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, 24 June 2015 10:30 p.m. > *To:* Marco Zocca > *Cc:* PETSc > *Subject:* Re: [petsc-dev] "pure" subset of operators > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Marco Zocca <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hello, >> is there an index of the PETSc operations (e.g. mathematical on Vec's >> and Mat's) that do NOT overwrite the operands? >> I understand in-place operations are more efficient, but they make it >> harder to reason about the program's operation. >> > > We do not make a separate list of these. > > Thanks, > > Matt > > >> Thank you in advance >> > > > > -- > 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
