On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 16:50, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> We don't usually do things that way hence I think a specific checking > function is better. > > 3 seconds later I like the idea of returning null if it does not exist > and not having the other checking function. Mark me down for the returning > null approach. > So the concern is what should VecGhostUpdateBegin/End do for non-ghosted Vecs? In the serial case, there is no harm in doing nothing because in the usual situation, there are just zero ghosted entries. For user-defined Vecs, what should happen? Should VecGhostUpdateBegin just fail for anything that is not explicitly ghosted? I don't have a problem using a Vec_MPI in serial so that the presence of exactly 0 ghosts can be explicit. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20111109/48999b77/attachment.html>
