On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, John Peterson wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Roy Stogner wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016, Manav Bhatia wrote:
Seems like this was added in “65cde6a” on 5/17/14.
Was this intended?
Intended, but not correctly, I believe. It looks
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Roy Stogner
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016, Manav Bhatia wrote:
>
> Seems like this was added in “65cde6a” on 5/17/14.
>> Was this intended?
>>
>
> Intended, but not correctly, I believe. It looks like John was going
> through the code looking for switch statemen
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016, Manav Bhatia wrote:
Seems like this was added in “65cde6a” on 5/17/14.
Was this intended?
Intended, but not correctly, I believe. It looks like John was going
through the code looking for switch statements with no default (which
in many parts of the FE code would imply
Seems like this was added in “65cde6a” on 5/17/14.
Was this intended?
-Manav
> On Oct 18, 2016, at 9:40 PM, Manav Bhatia wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>I am using SZABAB shape functions with QUAD9 element, and am tripping the
> error in the "default:” case for the enum in lines 208-228 in
> fe_sz
Hi,
I am using SZABAB shape functions with QUAD9 element, and am tripping the
error in the "default:” case for the enum in lines 208-228 in
fe_szabab_shape_2D.C (shown below).
I had successfully used this combination about 3 years ago, so I am not sure
what, if anything, has changed in
