On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> writes: > > > It was suggested to me that we add VecGhostUpdate() to VecAssembly(). > This > > sounds > > reasonable to me. What do you think? > > Uh, why? What is the most common use of VecAssembly? Seems like > building b or x_0 to solve A x = b, in which case you don't need updated >
This is a good argument. > ghost values. Also, who uses VecGhost _and_ VecAssembly for the same > Vec? That's quite wasteful; if you have local indexing, why not just > use VecGhostUpdate(...,SCATTER_REVERSE)? > I do not understand this argument. If you form the local part of each vector using VecGetArray(), then you must call both VecAssembly() and VecGhostUpdate(), which I think is the complaint. 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
