On 12/2/10 1:11 PM, Roy Stogner wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Boyce Griffith wrote:
>
>> OK --- attached is a patch. Most of it is just re-indenting. (I wasn't
>> always careful about using tabs instead of spaces --- is there a
>> convention that you all prefer to use?)
>
> The ideal thing to do
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Boyce Griffith wrote:
> OK --- attached is a patch. Most of it is just re-indenting. (I wasn't
> always careful about using tabs instead of spaces --- is there a convention
> that you all prefer to use?)
The ideal thing to do is tabs for indentation, spaces for alignment.
On 12/2/10 10:17 AM, Roy Stogner wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Boyce Griffith wrote:
If you agree, I'm happy to send a patch.
Thanks! That would be great.
OK --- attached is a patch. Most of it is just re-indenting. (I wasn't
always careful about using tabs instead of spaces --- is there
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Boyce Griffith wrote:
> Looking around, there are some other places in libMesh that appear not to
> handle multiple boundary IDs per side. In particular:
>
> fe_base.C~ around line 2018
> mesh_communication.C ~ around lines 364 and 1080
> mesh_modification.C
On 12/1/10 9:31 PM, Roy Stogner wrote:
>
> Did you really managed to get overlapping BC IDs working with a
> dozen-line patch? Egg on our faces... I don't think any of the
> primary developers use multiple IDs on the same boundary right now,
> but if we'd known it would be that simple to support t
On Dec 1, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Roy Stogner wrote:
> Did you really managed to get overlapping BC IDs working with a
> dozen-line patch? Egg on our faces... I don't think any of the
> primary developers use multiple IDs on the same boundary right now,
> but if we'd known it would be that simple to s
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Boyce Griffith wrote:
> I noticed that adding multiple boundary IDs to the boundary_info object
> caused an assertion to fail in xdr_io::write_serialized_bcs() at line
> 740 of xdr_io.C, which asserts that n_bcs == n_bcs_out.
>
> Looking at the code that packs up the IDs, it a
Hi, Folks --
I noticed that adding multiple boundary IDs to the boundary_info object
caused an assertion to fail in xdr_io::write_serialized_bcs() at line
740 of xdr_io.C, which asserts that n_bcs == n_bcs_out.
Looking at the code that packs up the IDs, it appears that only the
first boundary
