OK. Does any of them consider a sparse function differentiation or one should define a dense matrix to recieve the result? If so, then is there any possiblity to face with memory allocation problem in Large scale simulations?
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > This is a choice for you to make. Operator overloading is usually less > intrusive to use, but also more limited in capability. > > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:24 AM, behzad baghapour < > behzad.baghapour at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Jed, >> >> Which AD tool you suggest in the case of fast evaluations? Operator >> Overlapping types like ADOL-C or source code transformation types like ADIC? >> >> In addition, I prefer the minimum possible change to the my code >> structure :-) >> >> Thanks a lot, >> BehZad >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:06 PM, behzad baghapour < >> behzad.baghapour at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> OK. Thanks. I should try it. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:19 PM, behzad baghapour < >>>> behzad.baghapour at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear developers, >>>>> >>>>> I need to evaluate Jacobian matrix using an AD tool. I read from the >>>>> Petsc manual that it can only work with structured grid via DMMG >>>>> interface. >>>>> Is there a possible way to use it for unstructured grid and set it for KSP >>>>> structure? >>>>> >>>> >>>> ADIC has not been supported for a long time so the "automatic" AD >>>> support in PETSc is no longer supported either. Unfortunately, the >>>> successors to ADIC, while more "capable", are much more involved to build >>>> and to use. >>>> >>>> You have always been able to use any AD tool internally to define the >>>> Jacobian (in assembled or unassembled form). >>>> >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20120820/e04398ed/attachment-0001.html>
