I'd like to get the next PETSc release out very soon (so we can
start ripping petsc-dev apart and making it way cooler :-). Please
send in any outstanding bug reports and test your applications to make
sure the code is in good shape.
Thanks
Barry
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:58:46 -0600, Dmitry Karpeev
wrote:
> It seems like optional attributes can be relatively easily implemented
> by adding just two
> extra columns to the table: "key" and "value" and then constructing
> the corresponding
> SQL queries something like (I haven't looked at SQL i
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:25:39 -0600, Dmitry Karpeev
wrote:
> Here's the main problem that I see: are file attributes stored in the database
> fixed? That could be somewhat inflexible (what if some attributes don't apply
> to a given file? what if I want to add another attribute?). The alternati
This should be ok. LOCDIR is relative to the PETSC_DIR root and
always in the petsc tree. So long as a PETSc developer doesn't make a
new subdirectory with a space in it we should be all set.
You are right if someone sets their own LOCDIR for their own source
tree in a crazy manner bu
Actually - directory is a relative path within petsc - so it shouldn't
have spaces. So - I guess this is not an issue..
satish
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Satish Balay wrote:
> One potential issue is - if the dir has spaces - as on windows.. Hence the
> need for quotes for -D__INSDIR__='directory'
>
One potential issue is - if the dir has spaces - as on windows.. Hence the need
for quotes for -D__INSDIR__='directory'
satish
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Barry Smith wrote:
>
> Currently the macro variable __SDIR__ is defined in conf/variables with
> quotes around it, passed to the compiler as -D
Currently the macro variable __SDIR__ is defined in conf/variables
with quotes around it, passed to the compiler as -
D__SDIR__="directory" and then used in PETSc source code as a string.
This works but is fragile to shells removing various quotes before
passing to the compiler.
Lis
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:31:32 -0600, Dmitry Karpeev
wrote:
> Yes, I think SQL or some such approach would be a good solution.
> I don't even think the actual file format matters too much: we can just
> create collections of files that share keys. The database is needed only
> to manage file names
iments
is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments
lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20100224/b3d57b12/attachment.html>
I have located the tarball for the Alice Memory Snooper code
(AMS). If anybody would like a copy of it to look at, send me an
email. The code is ten years old and its makefile system is out of
date and would need minor working to get things compiled. This does
not include any PETSc cod
It seems like optional attributes can be relatively easily implemented
by adding just two
extra columns to the table: "key" and "value" and then constructing
the corresponding
SQL queries something like (I haven't looked at SQL in a long time)
(WHERE(key="precision", value="double")), etc.
I think
Jed's email jogged my memory that I had started a simple ASCII-
based "GUI" to present the options and allow user changes.
I have resurrected that code, added a bunch new code, and cleaned
up the code with the option -options_gui (temporary name). You can
give it a try. It only handle
I notice low-bit differences between the new ILU and versions from last
month. From one of my tests:
-Algebraic residual|x|_1 9.35e-16 |x|_2 2.59e-16 |x|_inf 1.67e-16
+Algebraic residual|x|_1 1.09e-15 |x|_2 3.00e-16 |x|_inf 1.67e-16
-Algebraic residual|x|_1 6.18e
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Jed Brown wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:31:32 -0600, Dmitry Karpeev
> wrote:
>> Yes, I think SQL or some such approach would be a good solution.
>> I don't even think the actual file format matters too much: we can just
>> create collections of files that share
Jed,
Can you simply your test into a small petsc example that repeats
this behavior?
I want test it myself to make sure the differences are not
result of bug in the new implementation.
Hong
On Feb 24, 2010, at 2:55 AM, Jed Brown wrote:
> I notice low-bit differences between the new ILU and vers
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Jed Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:44:55 -0600, Dmitry Karpeev
> wrote:
>> Yes, but what about using Spotlight programmatically (e.g., from
>> PETSc) to store rich state, checkpointing, etc? ?For example, I want
>> to store a Vec. ?How do I label it? ?The
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:44:55 -0600, Dmitry Karpeev
wrote:
> Yes, but what about using Spotlight programmatically (e.g., from
> PETSc) to store rich state, checkpointing, etc? For example, I want
> to store a Vec. How do I label it? There maybe various user contexts
> that share it, so I'd like
17 matches
Mail list logo
