pushed a fix for this issue.
satish
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, PETSc checkBuilds wrote:
>
>
> Dear PETSc developer,
>
> This email contains listings of contributions attributed to you by
> `git blame` that caused compiler errors or warnings in PETSc automated
> testing. Follow the links to see the
Matt, Dmitry, Stefano,
In reference to pull request 356
Since PetscViewerGetSubcomm() and PetscViewerGetSingleton() were totally
broken for recursive use and for writing to a file I had to do a major
reorganization. In particular
PetscViewerGetSubcomm() and PetscViewerGetSinglet
> On Aug 11, 2015, at 3:47 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Mark Adams wrote:
> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/Sys/PetscOptionsBool.html#PetscOptionsBool
>
> has PetscOptionsBool_Private in the body.
>
> That is actually what is in t
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
> Matthew Knepley writes:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Mark Adams wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/Sys/PetscOptionsBool.html#PetscOptionsBool
> >>
> >> has PetscOptionsBool_Private in t
Matthew Knepley writes:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Mark Adams wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/Sys/PetscOptionsBool.html#PetscOptionsBool
>>
>> has PetscOptionsBool_Private in the body.
>>
>
> That is actually what is in the file.
Yes, but the u
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Mark Adams wrote:
>
> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/Sys/PetscOptionsBool.html#PetscOptionsBool
>
> has PetscOptionsBool_Private in the body.
>
That is actually what is in the file.
Matt
> Mark
>
--
What most experimenters ta
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/Sys/PetscOptionsBool.html#PetscOptionsBool
has PetscOptionsBool_Private in the body.
Mark
> El 11/8/2015, a las 12:17, Leoni, Massimiliano
> escribió:
>
> Jose,
>
> I have a doubt I made myself unclear earlier: when I said the GPU version was
> slower than the CPU version, I meant single GPU vs single CPU multithreaded
> [i.e. 12 threads].
>
> The single GPU version is, at the m
Jose,
I have a doubt I made myself unclear earlier: when I said the GPU version was
slower than the CPU version, I meant single GPU vs single CPU multithreaded
[i.e. 12 threads].
The single GPU version is, at the moment, performing slightly better than the
serial [1 CPU with one thread] versio
On Sat, Aug 08, 2015 at 03:29:49PM -0500, Barry Smith wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> So GAMG uses random numbers in the implementation, this means identical
> runs on machines with different random number generates can produce
> noticeable different convergence histories. This means that the "no ch
10 matches
Mail list logo
