On Oct 17, 2008, at 3:21 PM, Roy Stogner wrote:
> If it takes a long time for you guys to fix that not_implemented,
> then you might want to throw a "return 0;" inside a test like
> "#if defined(TRILINOS) && !defined(PETSC)" (or whatever condition
> actually breaks it).
I just checked in the
On Oct 17, 2008, at 3:21 PM, Roy Stogner wrote:
> If it takes a long time for you guys to fix that not_implemented,
> then you might want to throw a "return 0;" inside a test like
> "#if defined(TRILINOS) && !defined(PETSC)" (or whatever condition
> actually breaks it). Last February or so I
Derek Gaston wrote:
> Ok - I've committed ex19 (just made a couple of small changes).
> Thanks Norbert! I also committed your small diff so it runs fine in
> parallel with NOX.
>
> Roy - not to worry about it borking out on you when you run the
> examples in parallel... we're only going to
Ok - I've committed ex19 (just made a couple of small changes).
Thanks Norbert! I also committed your small diff so it runs fine in
parallel with NOX.
Roy - not to worry about it borking out on you when you run the
examples in parallel... we're only going to put not_implemented() into
th
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Derek Gaston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I did end up implementing the inverse maps it just felt wrong to do
> it any other way.
>
> My changes are all tested and committed (along with a few other bugs in
> exodus_io getting fixed...)... so now you will get
So I did end up implementing the inverse maps it just felt wrong
to do it any other way.
My changes are all tested and committed (along with a few other bugs
in exodus_io getting fixed...)... so now you will get sidesets in
exodus output from libMesh...
Derek
--
On Oct 17, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Roy Stogner wrote:
> Would you handle the missing capability in two places? First, if
> you put not_implemented() for more than one processor in the library
> code, that will protect anyone else trying to use the new code under
> conditions it's not ready for ye
Derek Gaston wrote:
> As for the Jacobian in parallel... let's call not_implemented(). I
> would rather get an error than get completely different behavior and
> not know why.
I hate to butt in (well, I try to suppress my enjoyment of butting in,
anyway), but:
Would you handle the missing
Thanks for the patch... I'll take a look at all of this shortly and
commit it.
As for the Jacobian in parallel... let's call not_implemented(). I
would rather get an error than get completely different behavior and
not know why.
Thanks again!
Derek
On Oct 17, 2008, at 6:39 AM, Norbert S
