Re: [petsc-dev] unpleasantness in CUDA tests in master

2016-06-21 Thread Karl Rupp
On 06/21/2016 04:16 AM, Barry Smith wrote: ftp://ftp.mcs.anl.gov/pub/petsc/nightlylogs/archive/2016/06/20/master.html I'll fix this. Best regards, Karli

Re: [petsc-dev] PETSc "testing" infrastructure

2016-06-21 Thread Patrick Sanan
PR #498 made. I am also interested in making an edit of the dev manual more broadly. Are there any unusual restrictions on the latex build on the machine where the docs are generated? On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Barry Smith wrote: > > Patrick, > > Thanks, make it a pull request to mas

Re: [petsc-dev] unpleasantness in CUDA tests in master

2016-06-21 Thread Jose E. Roman
> El 21 jun 2016, a las 9:18, Karl Rupp escribió: > > On 06/21/2016 04:16 AM, Barry Smith wrote: >> >> ftp://ftp.mcs.anl.gov/pub/petsc/nightlylogs/archive/2016/06/20/master.html > > I'll fix this. > > Best regards, > Karli > > Probably some of these are fixed in PR #490 GPU regression tes

Re: [petsc-dev] PETSc "testing" infrastructure

2016-06-21 Thread Barry Smith
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 2:40 AM, Patrick Sanan wrote: > > PR #498 made. > > I am also interested in making an edit of the dev manual more broadly. > Are there any unusual restrictions on the latex build on the machine > where the docs are generated? Unusual? I guess just make your changes and

[petsc-dev] Bug in MatZeroRows_MPIAIJ

2016-06-21 Thread Stefano Zampini
I think that the test if ((diag != 0.0) && (mat->A->rmap->N == mat->A->cmap->N)) { at line 836 in src/mat/impls/aij/mpi/mpiaij.c (master) is a bug, either for rectangular matrices or even for square matrices with non-trivial layouts. It can happen that some of the processes does not satisfy the

Re: [petsc-dev] Bug in MatZeroRows_MPIAIJ

2016-06-21 Thread Barry Smith
Most definitely a bug. If it all possible let's keep the code self contained here and not require flags set in other parts of the code because that could easily led to confusion and bugs in the future. Why not just remove the first if test (below) and just have the two conditions diag !=

Re: [petsc-dev] Bug in MatZeroRows_MPIAIJ

2016-06-21 Thread Lisandro Dalcin
On 22 June 2016 at 00:30, Barry Smith wrote: > Why not just remove the first if test (below) and just have the two > conditions diag != 0.0 and drag == 0.0 > > if ((diag != 0.0) && (mat->A->rmap->N == mat->A->cmap->N)) { > ierr = MatZeroRows(mat->A, len, lrows, diag, NULL, > NULL);