Hello,
I'm evaluating my options for computing time dependent adjoints. I did not
think PETSc supported this, but I see TSAdjointSolve in the development
branch. That would be fantastic news if you plan to support time integrated
adjoints!
What features are envisioned and when is the targeted
Hello,
given I have this piece of python code:
rank = MPI.COMM_WORLD.Get_rank()
sizes = [ 4, 5]
n = sizes[rank]
A = PETSc.Mat()
A.create()
A.setSizes( ((n, PETSc.DETERMINE), (n, PETSc.DETERMINE)) ) # sets the local
size, let petsc determine global size
A.setFromOptions(); A.setUp()
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Fande Kong fande.k...@colorado.edu
wrote:
Hi all,
I have several lines of code to read a mesh and uniformly refine it.
DMPlex can not uniformly refine it. I am using PETSc-3.5.3. The code is
very simple like follows:
#undef __FUNCT__
#define __FUNCT__
Hi all,
I have several lines of code to read a mesh and uniformly refine it. DMPlex
can not uniformly refine it. I am using PETSc-3.5.3. The code is very
simple like follows:
#undef __FUNCT__
#define __FUNCT__ main
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
DM dm,pdm, refinedMesh;
This e-mail was sent to your mailbox and contains information directly related
to your account with us
Update
Security notifications.
Thanks,
Apple Customer Team
Thanks. It does work now.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Matthew Knepley knep...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Fande Kong fande.k...@colorado.edu
wrote:
Hi all,
I have several lines of code to read a mesh and uniformly refine it.
DMPlex can not uniformly refine it.
Hi Justin,
I have pushed these changes to the next branch, your code snippet should
work fine there.
Note that there is also available (since version 3.5.0) the routine
TaoGetSolutionStatus(tao,its,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL) which will provide
the
same information
Jason
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at
So in your example of the form function, is something happening where, when I
leave the scope of FormFunction, the invocation of DMGetLocalVector on the DM
keeps a note that it had been called previously and has that memory already
allocated? Does the design distinguish between different calls
On Apr 14, 2015, at 7:43 PM, Gideon Simpson gideon.simp...@gmail.com wrote:
So in your example of the form function, is something happening where, when I
leave the scope of FormFunction, the invocation of DMGetLocalVector on the DM
keeps a note that it had been called previously and has
Hello everyone,
My program runs fine, with debug mode, on my Ubuntu laptop, but when I run
the same code on my iMac (Yosemite) with no debug, I get this error:
[0]PETSC ERROR:
[0]PETSC ERROR: Caught signal number 10 BUS:
On Apr 14, 2015, at 6:25 PM, Gideon Simpson gideon.simp...@gmail.com wrote:
So other than the minor point of it zeroing out the data, is there any
conceivable reason to use Create/Destroy over Get/Restore?
The design intends that Create/Destroy are for long lived objects. For
example in
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Justin Chang jchan...@uh.edu wrote:
Hello everyone,
My program runs fine, with debug mode, on my Ubuntu laptop, but when I run
the same code on my iMac (Yosemite) with no debug, I get this error:
So it appears that this SEGV happens in your code, which
Also run with valgrind [perhaps on linux] to make sure valgrind doesn't
flag any memory corruption.
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/documentation/faq.html#valgrind
Satish
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015, Matthew Knepley wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Justin Chang jchan...@uh.edu wrote:
Hello
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Florian Lindner mailingli...@xgm.de
wrote:
Hello,
given I have this piece of python code:
rank = MPI.COMM_WORLD.Get_rank()
sizes = [ 4, 5]
n = sizes[rank]
A = PETSc.Mat()
A.create()
A.setSizes( ((n, PETSc.DETERMINE), (n, PETSc.DETERMINE)) ) # sets the
If i use the DM_BOUNDARY_GHOSTED flag in the creation of a DMDA array, are the
ghosted values automatically set to zero, or should they be manually set to
zero if that’s the desired ghost value?
-gideon
On Apr 14, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Dave Makhija makhi...@colorado.edu wrote:
Hello,
I'm evaluating my options for computing time dependent adjoints. I did not
think PETSc supported this, but I see TSAdjointSolve in the development
branch. That would be fantastic news if you plan to support
When PETSc vectors are created initially they always have 0 everywhere. So if
you use DMCreateLocalVector() it will have zero in all those ghost places (as
well as everywhere else).
But if you use DMGetLocalVector() it returns vectors that maybe dirty so you
need to fill in any
Other than zeroing things out, is there any substantive difference between
DMCreateLocalVector and DMGetLocalVector?
-gideon
On Apr 14, 2015, at 7:02 PM, Barry Smith bsm...@mcs.anl.gov wrote:
When PETSc vectors are created initially they always have 0 everywhere. So
if you use
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Gideon Simpson gideon.simp...@gmail.com
wrote:
Other than zeroing things out, is there any substantive difference between
DMCreateLocalVector and DMGetLocalVector?
The Get version caches vectors, so you are not continually
creating/destroying
Matt
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Gideon Simpson gideon.simp...@gmail.com
wrote:
So other than the minor point of it zeroing out the data, is there any
conceivable reason to use Create/Destroy over Get/Restore?
Nope, and calling VecSet(v, 0.0) is really cheap.
Matt
-gideon
On Apr 14,
So other than the minor point of it zeroing out the data, is there any
conceivable reason to use Create/Destroy over Get/Restore?
-gideon
On Apr 14, 2015, at 7:16 PM, Matthew Knepley knep...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Gideon Simpson gideon.simp...@gmail.com
21 matches
Mail list logo
