Hi, It’s always been my understanding that and pets object obtained by a XXXGetYYY had to be released with a matching XXXRestoreYYY, and that those created using XXXCreateYYY had to be destroyed with a YYYDestroy.
It seems that this convention is getting broken in several place. I understand that in several situations, this is because the XXXRestoreYYY would essentially do nothing. Is it safe to assume that if a function XXXGetYYY does not have a matching XXXRestoreYYY, the instance of PetscYYY does not have to be destroyed in any way? Is it safe to assume that any instance of a PetscYYY created from XXXCreateYYY can be safely destroyed with a YYYDestroy without side effects? If so, should the offending functions be renamed or should something be explicitly added to their man page? Blaise -- Department of Mathematics and Center for Computation & Technology Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA Tel. +1 (225) 578 1612, Fax +1 (225) 578 4276 http://www.math.lsu.edu/~bourdin
