Thanks once more. > > Okay, you can specify index sets for both sides and keep the same > meaning you have now, but if you call > > AOCreateBasicIS(isg,NULL,&ao); > > then the new ordering 'isg' is the "application ordering". This is > consistent with normal usage where "PETSc ordering" is the way data is > currently distributed and the "application ordering" is the ordering > that will be used for some other purpose. > > https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/commits/2609aec54a581b5b53a7f4681bee8e97b5c70594
OK, I see the point. In any case, I would say that this usage of the terminology "application ordering" is not fully coherent with the discussion of section 2.3.1, where (as far as I understood) "application ordering" is supposed to be the original ordering of the application data (mesh veticies, dof, etc?) before optimal distribution of it (or, e.g., by calling the program in a single processor). Best, Miguel -- INRIA Paris - Rocquencourt Building 16, office 11 78153 Le Chesnay Cedex (France) phone: +33 (0)1 3963 5470 fax: +33 (0)1 3963 5882 www-rocq.inria.fr/who/Miguel.Fernandez -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20130326/886c458d/attachment.html>
