> On Jan 5, 2016, at 7:29 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
>
> Matthew Knepley writes:
>
>> How devastating would it be for Deal.II if we renamed them
>> MatCreateSubMatrix()? ;)
>
> I know it's consistent with respect to reference counting semantics, but
> it might be harder for new users to find when s
Matthew Knepley writes:
> How devastating would it be for Deal.II if we renamed them
> MatCreateSubMatrix()? ;)
I know it's consistent with respect to reference counting semantics, but
it might be harder for new users to find when searching the docs. I
have no data either way. I recall discuss
How devastating would it be for Deal.II if we renamed them
MatCreateSubMatrix()? ;)
Matt
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Barry Smith wrote:
>
> Yeah, looks like MatGetSubMatrix() and MatGetSubMatrices() didn't get
> renamed to the "current" approach.
>
>Barry
>
> > On Jan 5, 2016, at 5
Yeah, looks like MatGetSubMatrix() and MatGetSubMatrices() didn't get renamed
to the "current" approach.
Barry
> On Jan 5, 2016, at 5:46 PM, Bhalla, Amneet Pal S wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jan 5, 2016, at 3:32 PM, Barry Smith wrote:
>>
>> So get -> no destroy
>>create -> destroy
>
On Jan 5, 2016, at 3:32 PM, Barry Smith
mailto:bsm...@mcs.anl.gov>> wrote:
So get -> no destroy
create -> destroy
Is MatGetSubMatrices() exception to this rule? The manual says to call the
destroy() function after done with it.
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpa
In general XXXGetYYY() do not increase the reference count and you should not
destroy. Some XXXGetYYY() have a corresponding XXXRestoreYYY().
XXXCreateYYY() DO increase the reference count and should have destroy called.
So get -> no destroy
create -> destroy
Barry
In the pa
On Jan 5, 2016, at 3:20 PM, Dave May
mailto:dave.mayhe...@gmail.com>> wrote:
This statement would imply that in the absence of calling
PetscObjectReference() yourself, you should not call MatDestroy() on the matrix
returned
Got it. Thanks!
Looking at example usages in src/ksp/pc/impls/bjacobi/bjacobi.c or
src/ksp/pc/impls/gasm/gasm.c - there is no call to MatDestroy..
[or MatRestoreDiagonalBlock]
Satish
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016, Bhalla, Amneet Pal S wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Is it safe to call MatDestroy on the sequential matrix returned
The manpage
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/Mat/MatGetDiagonalBlock.html
indicates the reference counter on the returned matrix (a) isn't
incremented.
This statement would imply that in the absence of calling
PetscObjectReference() yourself, you should not call MatDest
Hi Folks,
Is it safe to call MatDestroy on the sequential matrix returned by
MatGetDiagonalBlock() after it’s no longer used?
Thanks,
— Amneet
=
Amneet Bhalla
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Department of Mathematics and McAllister Heart Inst
10 matches
Mail list logo