Re: [Libmesh-devel] Change to System::update()

2011-06-07 Thread Roy Stogner
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Derek Gaston wrote: How about the issues you brought up below?  Any clarity on those yet? I've put in a fix (r4564) that handles the noMPI and Trilinos regressions; double-check that it still works for the bug you've found? Thanks, --- Roy

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Change to System::update()

2011-05-25 Thread Roy Stogner
On Wed, 25 May 2011, Derek Gaston wrote: > I like the idea of adding a handler for segfaults that writes a > stack trace! Especially if it overrides the Petsc error handlers. > It wouldn't be helpful in this particular case because I already got > the stack trace with a core dump... but it woul

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Change to System::update()

2011-05-25 Thread Derek Gaston
On May 25, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Roy Stogner wrote: > I really wish you'd stopped after "reproducible"... Heh... me too! >> 2. Using the old System::update() with a solution->close() at the >> beginning is _not_ sufficient! It still segfaults! > > This is astonishing. > > This is on PETSc 2.3.3

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Change to System::update()

2011-05-25 Thread Roy Stogner
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Derek Gaston wrote: Here's some more info on this subject: 1.  The old System::update() is really segfaulting.  It's pretty reproducible with ~60 million DoFs. I really wish you'd stopped after "reproducible"... 2.  Using the old System::update() with a solution->close

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Change to System::update()

2011-05-23 Thread Derek Gaston
Here's some more info on this subject: 1. The old System::update() is really segfaulting. It's pretty reproducible with ~60 million DoFs. 2. Using the old System::update() with a solution->close() at the beginning is _not_ sufficient! It still segfaults! 3. Using the new System::update() work

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Change to System::update()

2011-05-12 Thread Roy Stogner
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Derek Gaston wrote: > Sent from my iPad > > On May 12, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Roy Stogner wrote: > >> operator= is implemented correctly for src.type == dst.type, and as of >> mid-last year it's implemented correctly in PetscVector when one type >> is PARALLEL and the other is GH

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Change to System::update()

2011-05-12 Thread Derek Gaston
Sent from my iPad On May 12, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Roy Stogner wrote: > operator= is implemented correctly for src.type == dst.type, and as of > mid-last year it's implemented correctly in PetscVector when one type > is PARALLEL and the other is GHOSTED. That's it. The new > System::update() proba

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Change to System::update()

2011-05-12 Thread Roy Stogner
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Derek Gaston wrote: > On May 12, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Roy Stogner wrote: > >> Mind if I make it the default in svn? Using operator= caused >> regressions in our Petsc+noMPI and our Trilinos regression tests. > > What? That doesn't make any sense! If that's true then we need

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Change to System::update()

2011-05-12 Thread Derek Gaston
On May 12, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Roy Stogner wrote: > Mind if I make it the default in svn? Using operator= caused > regressions in our Petsc+noMPI and our Trilinos regression tests. What? That doesn't make any sense! If that's true then we need to figure out why like do we not have operator

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Change to System::update()

2011-05-12 Thread Roy Stogner
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Derek Gaston wrote: > On May 11, 2011, at 11:46 PM, Roy Stogner wrote: > >> What happens when you add the solution->close() but leave the >> communication to VecScatter rather than VecCopy? > > Dunno... I'll give it a whirl. Mind if I make it the default in svn? Using opera

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Change to System::update()

2011-05-12 Thread Roy Stogner
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Derek Gaston wrote: > On May 11, 2011, at 11:46 PM, Roy Stogner wrote: > >> What happens when you add the solution->close() but leave the >> communication to VecScatter rather than VecCopy? > > Dunno... I'll give it a whirl. Thanks. >> Either way, I think we might want to a

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Change to System::update()

2011-05-12 Thread Derek Gaston
On May 11, 2011, at 11:46 PM, Roy Stogner wrote: > What happens when you add the solution->close() but leave the > communication to VecScatter rather than VecCopy? Dunno... I'll give it a whirl. > Either way, I think we might want to assert(closed) rather than adding > a usually-redundant close

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Change to System::update()

2011-05-11 Thread Roy Stogner
On Wed, 11 May 2011, Derek Gaston wrote: > Just a hunch: I think that Petsc is giving us a vector that hasn't > been properly closed as the solution vector. Note that I had to do > solution->close() before using the copy operator... that's because > Petsc claimed that the solution vector wasn't

[Libmesh-devel] Change to System::update()

2011-05-11 Thread Derek Gaston
Guys, I just committed a change to System::update() that I wanted to explain a bit. First, what I did: If you have ghosted vectors enabled it will now just use assignment to set current_local_solution... ie *current_local_solution = *solution. Second, why: We were getting segfaults on some of