On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 16:56, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> I realize that since the DMs may often share "the grid information" and > only be different in the stencil width or box type or something Jed (or > maybe it is Matt) is going to get all upset that their are two DMs with > common information sometimes. My response is "get over it" :-). Lots of objects share PetscLayouts, ISLocalToGlobalMappings, etc., without forcing this sharing on users (or, in most cases, even exposing the existence of these shared objects to the user). I think DM should work the same way. In this case, we are interpreting Vecs as being part of both spaces. I'm less keen on that, but it's not a deal breaker. What about DMDAFormJacobianLocal()? Should it have both matrices? How does the user manage the two DMs if they want to assemble both matrices in the same mesh traversal? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120210/feda4216/attachment.html>