Alright. Thanks Matt :) On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Mohammad Mirzadeh <mirzadeh at > gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi guys, >> >> This is rather a simple question. For objects that have both sequential >> and parallel versions (like Vec, Mat, etc), is there any benefit in >> directly calling to the sequential version instead of calling to the >> generic version (like VecCreateSeq instead of VecCreate) and running the >> code with 1 proc? I've always thought that PETSc would directly call the >> appropriate function at run time. Is this not the case? >> > > Yes, this is the case. There is no benefit. > > Matt > > I'm writing some wrappers for my code and i'm thinking if I need to >> consider different classes for seq and parallel or if I could get away by >> just working with the generic functions. >> >> Thanks a lot, >> Mohammad >> > > > > -- > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20111129/2583956a/attachment.htm>
