Barry - you forgot to commit/push the interface files in src/ksp/pc/impls/fieldsplit/ftn-custom.
http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/petsc-dev/rev/40f9515d8b01 Perhaps this interface addition can go into petsc-3.3? That patch [with a minor fix] can be easily applied to petsc-3.1 to get the link working. [old iffy functionality is a different matter :)] Satish On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Barry Smith wrote: > > Well the field split stuff in 3.1 is rather iffy anyways. You really need > to take the couple hours and do the upgrade before trying to add new features > to the fortran code you are using. The time to upgrade will be much less > than time spent in work arounds. > > Barry > > On Aug 8, 2012, at 8:52 PM, Colin McAuliffe <cjm2176 at columbia.edu> wrote: > > > Is there an alternative to this routine that will allow me to define > > hierarchical field splits in 3.1p8? It will be a fairly significant > > undertaking to upgrade the fortran code I am using to be compatible with > > newer versions of petsc. > > > > Colin > > > > Quoting Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov>: > > > >> > >> Colin, > >> > >> I'm sorry we never had a FORTRAN interface for this routine. You'll > >> need to switch to petsc-dev > >> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/developers/index.html to use that function. > >> > >> Barry > >> > >> > >> On Aug 8, 2012, at 7:54 PM, Colin McAuliffe <cjm2176 at columbia.edu> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Thanks I will look into DM. Is PCFieldSplitGetSubKSP in petsc version > >>> 3.1p8 callable from fortran? I am getting the following error when I > >>> compile the fortran code, and I cant figure out if this is an error in > >>> my code or what. > >>> > >>> Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: > >>> "_pcfieldsplitgetsubksp_", referenced from: > >>> _umacr6_ in umacr6.o > >>> ld: symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 > >>> > >>> > >>> thanks > >>> Colin > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com>: > >>> > >>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Colin McAuliffe <cjm2176 at > >>>> columbia.edu>wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hello all, > >>>>> > >>>>> When using PCFieldSplitSetIS to define splits within splits, should the > >>>>> IS > >>>>> contain indices in the original matrix or in the next highest split > >>>>> level? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> The next highest split level. You might consider using a DM if you have > >>>> some structure (like discretization on a mesh). > >>>> This should handle all the index-wrangling for you. It is new, but > >>>> intended > >>>> for just this kind of thing. > >>>> > >>>> Also, my matrix is in aij format but one of the sub fields has a block > >>>>> diagonal structure. Is it still possible use block jacobi on this field? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Yes. > >>>> > >>>> Matt > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Thanks and all the best > >>>>> Colin > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Colin McAuliffe > >>>>> PhD Candidate > >>>>> Columbia University > >>>>> Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 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 > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Colin McAuliffe > >>> PhD Candidate > >>> Columbia University > >>> Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Colin McAuliffe > > PhD Candidate > > Columbia University > > Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics > >
