On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 21:42, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't like this because it would mean calling VecSetUp() all over the > place. Couldn't the ghosting flag be on the same > level as the sizes? > Maybe VecSetUp() is wrong because that would imply collective. This memory allocation is simple and need not be collective. Ghosting information is an array, so placing it in VecSetSizes() would seem unnatural to me. I wouldn't really want VecSetGhosts(Vec,PetscInt,const PetscInt*) to be order-dependent with respect to VecSetType(), but maybe the VecSetUp() would be too messy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120206/3b696c04/attachment.html>
