On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Jed Brown <j...@jedbrown.org> wrote:
> Matthew Knepley <knep...@gmail.com> writes: > > Should we just make this another Random implementation which is only for > > testing? > > The problem is that we want to produce the same numbers on one process > and on many processes. The interface doesn't really afford that because > it provides a stream of numbers. If we know the number of entries we're > about to ask for on each process, we could do a Scan to find the > starting index and "seed" with that, where drawing a number hashes and > increments the counter. But this is pretty contorted. > It seems like we should do double dispatch for VecSetRandom(). Matt -- 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
