On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Lawrence Mitchell < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 25 May 2017, at 20:03, Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hmm, I thought I made adjacency per field. I have to look. That way, no > problem with the Stokes example. DG is still weird. > > You might, we don't right now. We just make the topological adjacency > that is "large enough", and then make fields on that. > > > > > That seems baroque. So this is just another adjacency pattern. You > should be able to easily define it, or if you are a patient person, > > wait for me to do it. Its here > > > > https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/src/01c3230e040078628f5e559992965c > 1c4b6f473d/src/dm/impls/plex/plexdistribute.c?at=master& > fileviewer=file-view-default#plexdistribute.c-239 > > > > I am more than willing to make this overridable by the user through > function composition or another mechanism. > > Hmm, that naive thing of just modifying the XXX_Support_Internal to > compute with DMPlexGetTransitiveClosure rather than DMPlexGetCone didn't do > what I expected, but I don't understand the way this bootstrapping is done > very well. > It should do the right thing. Notice that you have to be careful about the arrays that you use since I reuse them for efficiency here. What is going wrong? Matt > Cheers, > > Lawrence > > > -- 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 http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/
