Re: [deal.II] Re: making a package of PETSc vectors

No worried, VectorPacket[0].reset(new PETScWrappers::MPI::Vector(locally_owned_dofs, mpi_communicator) ) ; now did the job. Thanks. On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 8:01:18 PM UTC-5, Ignacio Tomas wrote: > > I wanted to do something like (in reality I would do this with a for loop) > >

Re: [deal.II] Re: making a package of PETSc vectors

I wanted to do something like (in reality I would do this with a for loop) std::vector< std::shared_ptr > VectorPacket ; VectorPacket.resize(3) ; VectorPacket[0].reset(new PETScWrappers::MPI::Vector) ; VectorPacket[1].reset(new PETScWrappers::MPI::Vector) ; VectorPacket[2].reset(new

Re: [deal.II] Re: making a package of PETSc vectors

Thanks, I will definitely try it. Ignacio. On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Jean-Paul Pelteret wrote: > Dear Itomas, > > I would recommend going the route suggested in this recent post >

[deal.II] Avoid holding matrices in vector for MeshWorker

Dear all, I have seen that MeshWorker with the MatrixSimple assembler has an initialize member that needs a vector of matrices. However that isn't really good for my case, as I'd like to assign ownership of matrices as I wish, not necessarily to a vector. Is there any possibility to assemble

Re: [dealii-developers] authors.html format

Ditto. On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 8:49:56 PM UTC+1, Matthias Maier wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017, at 14:38 CDT, Timo Heister > wrote: > > > Hey all, > > > > the AUTHORS file for a specific release (see > > >

[deal.II] Re: making a package of PETSc vectors

Dear Itomas, I would recommend going the route suggested in this recent post , namely creating a vector of shared pointers of PETSc vectors, i.e. std::vector. Using shared pointers means that you safeguard against

[deal.II] Re: Vertices constraints inside the domain

Hi Seven, Thanks for reporting back that you missed a step in the application of the constraints! I'm glad that you managed to solve your problem. Best regards, Jean-Paul On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 2:09:35 AM UTC+1, seven wrote: > > Guess I figured it out. I didn't do >