Thanks guys. This is helpful. Actually I am using a Linux 64-bit OS and my tests show that on my system:
sizeof(int) = 4 sizeof(long int) = 8 sizeof(long long int) = 8 So as Jed was saying on my system long int is the same as long long int and I need the --with-64-bit-indices flag. But if it leads to too much cost I'm willing to change it back to int as currently I wont have 2B points on each processor Thanks again On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Jed Brown <jed at 59a2.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 20:35, Mohammad Mirzadeh <mirzadeh at gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Jun 12, 2011 11:33 AM, "Mohammad Mirzadeh" <mirzadeh at gmail.com> wrote: >> > Thanks Barry. Problem is my indices are all long and if I use the with >> petsc >> > the compiler will complain. Do you think casting them to int will solve >> the >> > problem? >> > > No, if your code is hard-coded to work with "long" and you are on a LP64 > platform (e.g. 64-bit x86 Linux or OS-X), then you must use > --with-64-bit-indices. > > Note that hard-coding long may make your code non-portable to an LLP64 > platform like 64-bit Windows. In any case, you would *not* use > --with-64-bit-indices there because long is the same as int on LLP64. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20110612/25293089/attachment.htm>
