Dear Roy,
Thank you for your work and your patch.
I have looked at it and the following comments:
(1) In the ghosted version of PetscVector::init(), you have placed an
assert that checks whether the mesh is disjoint. Why is this
necessary?
(2) In PetscVector::close(), I currently wonder wh
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Roy Stogner wrote:
> The part of the code that really *is* a regression is attached, as
> yet-another patch version. As far as I can tell, the most prominent
> (but hopefully increasingly lonely) current bug is that
> PetscVector::localize() doesn't seem to properly update a G
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Tim Kroeger wrote:
> (1) In the ghosted version of PetscVector::init(), you have placed an assert
> that checks whether the mesh is disjoint. Why is this necessary?
No - it's an assert that checks whether someone's trying to initialize
a disjoint ghosted vector, which shoul
Dear Roy,
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Roy Stogner wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Tim Kroeger wrote:
>
>> (3) It so happened that I looked at PetscVector::operator=(const
>> std::vector& v) and noticed that in the ghosted case, it might be
>> appropiate to set _is_closed to false. This is because for gho
