On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 05:41:42PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > On 3 October 2011 17:17, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 02:17:29PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > >> On Friday September 30 2011 14:12:37 Anders Logg wrote: > >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:25:16PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > >> > > On Friday September 30 2011 09:56:41 Anders Logg wrote: > >> > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 08:05:21AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > >> > > > > On Friday September 30 2011 07:26:16 [email protected] wrote: > >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > > > > > revno: 6319 > >> > > > > > committer: Anders Logg <[email protected]> > >> > > > > > branch nick: work > >> > > > > > timestamp: Fri 2011-09-30 16:23:08 +0200 > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > message: > >> > > > > > Add options finalize_tensor/finalize_tensors to Python assemble > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > functions. Note change of name of option reset_sparsity --> > >> > > > > > reset_sparsities for assemble_system for consistency with option > >> > > > > > name in > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Maybe change back to reset_sparsity for both functions instead, as > >> > > > > the sparsity pattern only is built for Matrices? > >> > > > > >> > > > I thought about it but noticed that init_global_tensor is called for > >> > > > both so "reset_sparsities" is consistent with "finalize_tensors". > >> > > > >> > > Yes, but the SpartistyPatternBuilder::build just build a sparsity > >> > > pattern > >> > > for Tensors with rank 2 or larger. > >> > > >> > Yes, but it may potentially do so. > >> > > >> > Anyway, perhaps it is more important to keep the arguments to the two > >> > assemble functions as similar as possible. So we change to > >> > reset_sparsity and finalize_tensor for both arguments in all assemble > >> > functions. > >> > >> Yes I initially thought of this too, but the other arguments differ so much > >> anyhow so I was not sure the point was valid, but I guess it still is. > >> > >> > ok? > >> > >> Yes! > > > > Done + the other changes discussed earlier: making assemble_foo > > functions public and add PETScMatrix::apply("flushx"). > > > > What does GenericMatrix::apply("flush") do?
Nothing in general. The mode option is undocumented (as it has been before) for GenericMatrix/Tensor, but it is (now) documented for PETScMatrix and EpetraMatrix. Different backends may support different values for the mode. For PETScMatrix: /// add - corresponding to PETSc MatAssemblyBegin+End(MAT_FINAL_ASSEMBLY) /// insert - corresponding to PETSc MatAssemblyBegin+End(MAT_FINAL_ASSEMBLY) /// flush - corresponding to PETSc MatAssemblyBegin+End(MAT_FLUSH_ASSEMBLY) For EpetraMatrix: /// add - corresponding to Epetra GlobalAssemble(Add) /// insert - corresponding to Epetra GlobalAssemble(Insert) It would be good to have a common set of valid modes but it's not worse than it was before when PETSc ignored the mode and Epetra supported "add" and "insert". -- Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
