Re: [Libmesh-devel] Problem when running NOX in parallel

2008-10-22 Thread Derek Gaston
Ok - I committed this patch... but something isn't quite sitting well with me. _map really should be valid all the time. I'm wondering if maybe we're not setting it in a copy constructor or something... If _map isn't valid then localize() isn't going to work properly... and that would be v

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Problem when running NOX in parallel

2008-10-20 Thread Derek Gaston
I'll apply this in a bit. Thanks for the patch! Derek On Oct 20, 2008, at 9:18 AM, Norbert Stoop wrote: > Derek Gaston wrote: >> 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 r

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Problem when running NOX in parallel

2008-10-20 Thread Norbert Stoop
Derek Gaston wrote: > 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. Here's another small patch for epet

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Problem when running NOX in parallel

2008-10-17 Thread Derek Gaston
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

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Problem when running NOX in parallel

2008-10-17 Thread Derek Gaston
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

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Problem when running NOX in parallel

2008-10-17 Thread Roy Stogner
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

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Problem when running NOX in parallel

2008-10-17 Thread Derek Gaston
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

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Problem when running NOX in parallel

2008-10-17 Thread Derek Gaston
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

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Problem when running NOX in parallel

2008-10-17 Thread Roy Stogner
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

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Problem when running NOX in parallel

2008-10-17 Thread Derek Gaston
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

Re: [Libmesh-devel] Problem when running NOX in parallel

2008-10-16 Thread Norbert Stoop
Derek Gaston wrote: > On Oct 16, 2008, at 9:16 AM, Norbert Stoop wrote: > >> What exactly is the missing functionality there? If I understand >> correctly, libmesh is already using the FECrsMatrix, so summation of the >> off-processor contributions should be taken care of already, or am I >> miss