Re: [petsc-dev] nightlybuilds (next vs next-tmp)

2017-11-15 Thread Smith, Barry F.
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Richard Tran Mills wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Smith, Barry F. wrote: > > > > On Nov 12, 2017, at 11:21 AM, Matthew Knepley

Re: [petsc-dev] nightlybuilds (next vs next-tmp)

2017-11-15 Thread Matthew Knepley
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Richard Tran Mills wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Smith, Barry F. > wrote: > >> >> >> > On Nov 12, 2017, at 11:21 AM, Matthew Knepley >> wrote: >> > >> > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Satish

Re: [petsc-dev] nightlybuilds (next vs next-tmp)

2017-11-15 Thread Richard Tran Mills
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Smith, Barry F. wrote: > > > > On Nov 12, 2017, at 11:21 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Satish Balay > wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Nov 2017, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > > >

Re: [petsc-dev] nightlybuilds (next vs next-tmp)

2017-11-15 Thread Satish Balay
I'm switching the nightlybuild to next-tmp with the following branches for tonight. $ git fetch -p && comm -12 <(git branch -r --merged origin/next-tmp | sort) <(git branch -r --no-merged origin/master | sort) |grep -v ' origin/next-tmp' origin/barry/remove-petscdatatype-dmgetworkarray

Re: [petsc-dev] [petsc-users] ISGlobalToLocalMappingApplyBlock

2017-11-15 Thread Adrian Croucher
I've debugged into the ISGlobalToLocalMappingApplyBlock() function and it seems to me the bounds checking in there is not correct when the blocksize is > 1. It checks against the same bounds, scaled up by the blocksize, in both the block and non-block versions of the function. I think for the

Re: [petsc-dev] PETSc 3.8.2 and Sundials 3.0.0

2017-11-15 Thread Smith, Barry F.
In general PETSc will not work out of the box against newer versions of external packages. If you do not need the new features of Sundials then just use the default download of Sundials that PETSc uses automatically. If you need the latest Sundials then someone needs to go through the

Re: [petsc-dev] PETSc 3.8.2 and Sundials 3.0.0

2017-11-15 Thread Antonio Trande
On 11/15/2017 08:58 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > Do you have any idea what they changed the name of CVSpgmr to in 3.0? > >    Matt No, but release change-log (https://computation.llnl.gov/projects/sundials/cvode) reports: *Added generic SUNLINEARSOLVER module with eleven provided

Re: [petsc-dev] PETSc 3.8.2 and Sundials 3.0.0

2017-11-15 Thread Matthew Knepley
Do you have any idea what they changed the name of CVSpgmr to in 3.0? Matt On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Antonio Trande wrote: > Hi all. > > I can't build 'PETSc 3.8.*' with MPI against new 'Sundials-3.0.0': > >

[petsc-dev] PetscSectionSetDofbreaks if PetscSectionSetNumFields is called AFTER PetscSectionSetChart

2017-11-15 Thread Blaise A Bourdin
Hi, I a seeing a bizarre behavior when setting up a DM for multiple fields. In the attached example, if the call to PetscSectionSetNumFields is moved until AFTER that to PetscSectionSetChart, I get an error while calling PetscSectionSetDof. Is this intended? If so, the documentation needs some