Matthew Knepley wrote: > Is there a problem with doing it the way PETSc does, namely > two arguments, either of which can be a default (to be determined value)? >
No. The point is that we don't at the moment have implemented a GenericVector constructor which accepts two arguments. Garth > Matt > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Garth N. Wells <gn...@cam.ac.uk > <mailto:gn...@cam.ac.uk>> wrote: > > > > Ola Skavhaug wrote: > > The way the GenericVector interface is implemented, a size > argument to > > the constructor will partition the vector on every process in > > parallel. We need to be able to allocate locally sized vectors. > Should > > I simply use a non-parallel aware linear algebra backend for this, > > like uBLAS? This will introduce a mix of different linear algebra > > backends, and I'm not sure what problems lurk i the shadows if I go > > down that road :) > > > > An alternative would be to add functionality (default argument?) to > > specify scope when calling resize and friends. > > > > I think that we need an argument to specify the local size of a vector > since this will vary across processes. > > Garth > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > DOLFIN-dev mailing list > DOLFIN-dev@fenics.org <mailto:DOLFIN-dev@fenics.org> > http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev > > > > > -- > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their > experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which > their experiments lead. > -- Norbert Wiener _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list DOLFIN-dev@fenics.org http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
