So basically hoist most of the data structure
typedef struct {
struct _MatShellOps ops[1];
PetscScalar vscale,vshift;
Vec dshift;
Vec left,right;
Vec left_work,right_work;
Vec left_add_work,right_add_work;
Mat axpy;
PetscScalar axpy_vscale;
PetscBool managescalingshifts; /* The user will manage
the scaling and shifts for the MATSHELL, not the default */
void *ctx;
} Mat_Shell;
into Mat? MatShell handles the axpy (which is nasty), would you handle
that as well, if not then you still have code duplication between the MatShell
implementations and the Mat___Basic implementations. If it wasn't for the axpy
I would say it is worth trying but including correctly the axpy (I am not sure
if it is always handled correctly for MatShell) requires complex code.
Barry
> On Dec 1, 2018, at 1:49 PM, Hapla Vaclav <vaclav.ha...@erdw.ethz.ch> wrote:
>
> MatDiagonalScale_Shell, MatDiagonalScale_Normal,
> MatDiagonalScaleHermitian_Normal and perhaps some others are essentially the
> same.
>
> What about converting them into one MatDiagonalScale_Basic which would be the
> default implementation if no type-specific implementation is provided?
>
> I'm asking because I wanted to add the same to MATTRANSPOSE. But with my
> proposal, this redundancy would be removed and additionally
> MatDiagonalScale() would work for any current or future MatType while it
> doesn't prevent providing an optimised version for explicit matrix types.
>
> Note the same could be done for MatScale, MatShift, MatDiagonalSet and maybe
> some others.
>
> I also think such approach would promote using such high-level API functions
> in higher PETSc layers and user codes because one wouldn't have to be afraid
> those methods might not be implemented in input matrices.
>
> Thanks for opinions
>
> Vaclav
