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
>
> >
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
> 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
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
On Jan 5, 2016, at 3:32 PM, Barry Smith
> 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.
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
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
On Jan 5, 2016, at 3:20 PM, Dave May
> 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!
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
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 ->
10 matches
Mail list logo