"Smith, Barry F." writes:
> Jed,
>
> Good recall. We could use the new flag that indicates the block size was
> never set by the user to allow a change from the 1?
Yeah, I thought that had been the idea behind -1, but the code doesn't seem to
enforce it.
Jed,
Good recall. We could use the new flag that indicates the block size was
never set by the user to allow a change from the 1?
Barry
> On Sep 4, 2019, at 2:42 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
>
> "Smith, Barry F. via petsc-dev" writes:
>
>> It seems reasonable at SetUp time to make it
"Smith, Barry F. via petsc-dev" writes:
> It seems reasonable at SetUp time to make it 1. If we need to have the
> information that user never set it (I don't know why we would want this) then
> that can go into a new flag.
I think I recall code paths in which the blocksize is set after
Exactly.
Thanks,
Vaclav
4. září 2019 20:15:42 SELČ, "Smith, Barry F." napsal:
>
>It seems reasonable at SetUp time to make it 1. If we need to have the
>information that user never set it (I don't know why we would want
>this) then that can go into a new flag.
>
> Barry
>
>
>> On Sep 4, 2019,
It seems reasonable at SetUp time to make it 1. If we need to have the
information that user never set it (I don't know why we would want this) then
that can go into a new flag.
Barry
> On Sep 4, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Matthew Knepley via petsc-dev
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 12:14 PM Václav Hapla via petsc-dev <
petsc-dev@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> Is there any reason why PetscLayoutSetUp couldn't guarantee blocksize >=
> 1? I don't like the negative value being there forever requiring all that
> PetscAbs business. It seems to me it just complicates
Is there any reason why PetscLayoutSetUp couldn't guarantee blocksize >= 1? I
don't like the negative value being there forever requiring all that PetscAbs
business. It seems to me it just complicates things unnecessarily.
Thanks,
Vaclav
