Please consider the attached patch.
Kent
# Bazaar merge directive format 2 (Bazaar 0.90)
# revision_id: kent-...@simula.no-20110404064913-n944nlrq5w2oylgy
# target_branch: bzr+ssh://bazaar.launchpad.net/%2Bbranch/dolfin/
# testament_sha1: eca4dcac14855f7fa199e2a4a8a809ede8a378b6
# timestamp:
I would prefer to not apply this just yet. I'm in the process if
re-factoring some aspects of parallel mesh functionality. Some classes
and functions have gotten out of hand.
Register a branch and a merge request so that it doesn't get forgotten.
Unit tests are also required before patches will
I have a unit test that I can include.
BTW: A couple of issues concerning this patch.
1. I have used a std::map for a global - local mapping. I don't know if
this
the most efficient thing to do, but it is certainly convenient.
2. The boundary indicators are read on every process because
On 04/04/11 09:49, Kent-Andre Mardal wrote:
I have a unit test that I can include.
BTW: A couple of issues concerning this patch.
1. I have used a std::map for a global - local mapping. I don't know if
this
the most efficient thing to do, but it is certainly convenient.
On 4 April 2011 11:25, Garth N. Wells gn...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
On 04/04/11 09:49, Kent-Andre Mardal wrote:
I have a unit test that I can include.
BTW: A couple of issues concerning this patch.
1. I have used a std::map for a global - local mapping. I don't know if
this
the most
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 10:25:02AM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 04/04/11 09:49, Kent-Andre Mardal wrote:
I have a unit test that I can include.
BTW: A couple of issues concerning this patch.
1. I have used a std::map for a global - local mapping. I don't know if
this
the
On 04/04/11 11:23, Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 10:25:02AM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 04/04/11 09:49, Kent-Andre Mardal wrote:
I have a unit test that I can include.
BTW: A couple of issues concerning this patch.
1. I have used a std::map for a global - local mapping.
On 04/04/11 10:36, Kent-Andre Mardal wrote:
On 4 April 2011 11:25, Garth N. Wells gn...@cam.ac.uk
mailto:gn...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
On 04/04/11 09:49, Kent-Andre Mardal wrote:
I have a unit test that I can include.
BTW: A couple of issues concerning this patch.
On 04/04/11 12:23, Anders Logg wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 07:42:35AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 15/03/11 20:56, Anders Logg wrote:
On 15 March 2011 20:49, Garth N. Wells gn...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
The number of Mesh members functions is getting pretty large, as too is
the number of
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 12:38:26PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 04/04/11 12:23, Anders Logg wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 07:42:35AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 15/03/11 20:56, Anders Logg wrote:
On 15 March 2011 20:49, Garth N. Wells gn...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
The number of
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:10:22PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 04/04/11 20:00, Johan Hake wrote:
On Monday April 4 2011 11:55:05 Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 04/04/11 19:51, Johan Hake wrote:
Hello!
I would very much like to have something like:
// Set the diagonal of a matrix
It seems it's still a problem with how the vectors are passed to and
from PETScKrylovMatrix by PSKSolver. Tweaking the KSP parameters (e.g.,
KSPSetNormType(*_ksp, KSP_NORM_NO)) made no difference. On the other
hand, the following does work:
class NewtonMatrix3(PETScKrylovMatrix) :
def
On Monday April 4 2011 12:13:22 Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:10:22PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 04/04/11 20:00, Johan Hake wrote:
On Monday April 4 2011 11:55:05 Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 04/04/11 19:51, Johan Hake wrote:
Hello!
I would very much like to
On Monday April 4 2011 12:09:16 Christian Clason wrote:
It seems it's still a problem with how the vectors are passed to and
from PETScKrylovMatrix by PSKSolver. Tweaking the KSP parameters (e.g.,
KSPSetNormType(*_ksp, KSP_NORM_NO)) made no difference. On the other
hand, the following does
On 04/04/11 20:20, Johan Hake wrote:
On Monday April 4 2011 12:13:22 Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:10:22PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 04/04/11 20:00, Johan Hake wrote:
On Monday April 4 2011 11:55:05 Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 04/04/11 19:51, Johan Hake wrote:
Hello!
I
On Monday April 4 2011 12:35:53 Christian Clason wrote:
Johan,
thanks for the explanation, that makes sense. I guess it's less of a bug
then and more of a request for documentation. By the way, the following
works as well and seems slightly more sensible:
The Buildbot has detected a new failure of dolfin-maverick-i386 on FEniCS
Buildbot.
Full details are available at:
http://fenicsproject.org:8080/builders/dolfin-maverick-i386/builds/182
Buildbot URL: http://fenicsproject.org:8080/
Buildslave for this Build: maverick-i386
Build Reason:
Build
17 matches
Mail list logo
