On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 04:18, Manfred Gratt <manfred.gratt at uibk.ac.at>wrote:
> thank you for your quick response. The petsc-dev did not solve the > segfault. I checked what the difference from ex5 to my code was and after I > changed my code to ex5 the segfault was gone when I used MatZeroEntries > instead of destroying and creating a new Matrix for the second solve. This > seems to be logical but, what I do not understand is why it works with > destroying and creating a new Matrix on more than one processor fine? I can't understand from this description exactly what works and what doesn't work for you. There shouldn't be a SEGV for any "reasonable" sequence of calls you make, so we should clarify the confusion and either fix the bug or make a better/earlier error message. Is there a way you can modify ex5 (or another example, or send your own code) to show the problem? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20120302/33edf30c/attachment.htm>
