On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Roy Stogner wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Tim Kroeger wrote:
>
>> I've meanwhile implemented "parallel=ghosted", see attached patch. It
>> solves the problem for me. (BTW, it's amazing what mistakes one can do
>> even in such a trivial change; I had to correct my patch two
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Tim Kroeger wrote:
> I've meanwhile implemented "parallel=ghosted", see attached patch. It solves
> the problem for me. (BTW, it's amazing what mistakes one can do even in such
> a trivial change; I had to correct my patch two times before it did what I
> wanted...) I'll
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Roy Stogner wrote:
I suspect there are only two reasons why we didn't support mismatched
types:
when that assertion was written we only had serial and parallel
vectors, a more extreme mismatch
we didn't know for sure that you could VecCopy between mismatched
types.
These
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:16:53 -0500 (CDT), Roy Stogner
wrote:
> I suspect there are only two reasons why we didn't support mismatched
> types:
>
> when that assertion was written we only had serial and parallel
> vectors, a more extreme mismatch
Yes, these are different in a deep way, they have
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Jed Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:59:22 +0200 (CEST), Tim Kroeger
> wrote:
>
>> In my application, I am doing quite a lot of assignments between
>> NumericVector instances (which always are PetscVector instances in my
>> case), and since I am lazily most of the time
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:59:22 +0200 (CEST), Tim Kroeger
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> In my application, I am doing quite a lot of assignments between
> NumericVector instances (which always are PetscVector instances in my
> case), and since I am lazily most of the time working in opt mode, I
> didn'
