Thanks for the answer! I am currently using the master branch of Trilinos,
to make sure that a newer version did not fix this.
I had some second-guessing with how I had configured Sacado itself since
there seems to be some options that changes how the reverse mode reuses the
I found that Sacado's nested reverse and forward mode AD leads to a memory
leak when use multiple times. I have opened an issue on their end:
and the steps to reproduce are pretty simple.
However, I've found that the community
Yes I can confirm, I am using QProjector with a dummy face Quadrature right
now it works as intended.
The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/
For mailing list/forum options, see
You received this message because you
es Point as input.
>> The dimensions of points in cells is different from that on faces. That’s
>> one of the reasons why I posted this question.
>> If I misunderstand you, please kindly let me know.
sing the member function
> "transform_unit_to_real_cell()" to get all support points in a unit cell?
> In the step, sort out the face points I need? Am I correct?
> On Sunday, June 21, 2020 at 5:00:35 PM UTC-7, Doug Shi-Dong wrote:
>> Hello L
You were close.
The project_real_point_to_unit_point_on_face() is useful is you take a
"volume" point within the cell. Since you are mapping from unit to real,
you would always know
Bonjour fellow Montreal-er (McGill), land of the bagel and poutine.
I have also given some thoughts to robustly generate our meshes with GMSH.
I think it's great to see that we've concluded to similar steps as you
1. Provide GMSH some CAD/NURBS parametrization from
More so, I just found that the AffineConstraints function have not been
instantiated for a mix of TrilinosWrappers::SparseMatrix and
LA::dist::Vector, hence it likely has not been tried out/tested.
Seems like it's just not a thing to use LA::dist::Vector other than for
I have been using the LinearAlgebra::distributed::Vector class for MPI
parallelization since the way it works is more familiar to what I had
worked with and seemed more flexible.
However, for parallelization, I have to either use a Trilinos or PETSc
matrix since the native deal.II
> If I recall correctly, we added that comment since this is a part of
> the library that is not very well tested. The code is probably fine.
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 2:33 PM Doug Shi-Dong > wrote:
> > Hello everyon
, the resulting Trilinos
vector was empty and would of course not have the same parallel
distribution as the matrix it was supposed to be multiplied with.
On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 6:25:49 PM UTC-5, Doug Shi-Dong wrote:
> I am trying to solve a block
I see that some functions within the constrained_linear_operator.h have a
Currently, this function may not work correctly for distributed data
I am currently using it in parallel and seems to be working fine for a very
simple linear elasticity problem
I am trying to solve a block system using the LinearOperators and Trilinos
matrices and vectors.
Currently, all my matrices uses TrilinosWrappers::SparseMatrix, but my
vectors use the deal.II LinearAlgebra::distributed::Vector because of how
easily it handles ghosted vectors.
Not sure why it builds fine locally, but that fixed it! Thank you!
On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 11:06:47 AM UTC-5, Wolfgang Bangerth
> On 11/6/19 8:49 AM, Doug Shi-Dong wrote:
> > Any hints about what could be causing this?
> I thou
> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 9:53:36 PM UTC-4, Doug Shi-Dong wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>> I would like to use Travis CI to test pull requests, and I am currently
>> following the steps described in
I would like to use Travis CI to test pull requests, and I am currently
following the steps described in
Except I am using the following Docker image:
It seems that
Sounds like you're implementing nodal DG, hence why you only need values
and gradients at the *quadrature* points from the neighbor. Something you
might want to consider rather than communicating them at solution points,
in case you ever decide to overintegrate.
You could still
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:43:23 AM UTC-4, Yang Liu wrote:
> Dear DEAL.II users,
> The DEAL.II software provides the function
> VectorTools::compute_mean_value() to integrate the solution over the whole
> But now I would like to integrate the solution over a subdomain.
Sorry to revive/hijack this thread, but it seems to have the exact
information/people that might be able to help.
My current goal is to perform some shape optimization with some
I am currently using Prof. Heltai's method described in this issue
On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 11:28:45 PM UTC-4, Wolfgang Bangerth
> It does not greatly surprise me that it doesn't compile -- what isn't
> generally doesn't work.
We'd of course be very happy to accept any patches to make things work.
Mail list logo