<p>Sorry for misspells . It's my phone's auto correct!</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jun 12, 2011 11:33 AM, "Mohammad Mirzadeh" <<a href="mailto:mirzadeh@gmail.com">mirzadeh@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution">> Thanks Barry. Problem is my indices are all long and if I use the with petsc<br>
> the compiler will complain. Do you think casting them to int will solve the<br>> problem? Also how does 64 bit international affect petsc performance?<br>> <br>> Thanks<br>> On Jun 12, 2011 9:39 AM, "Barry Smith" <<a href="mailto:bsmith@mcs.anl.gov">bsmith@mcs.anl.gov</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>>> On Jun 12, 2011, at 1:48 AM, Mohammad Mirzadeh wrote:<br>>><br>>>> I guess I figured it out. On 64-bit OS long long and long are the same<br>> and I may as well just use --with-64-bit-ints flag.<br>
>><br>>> You only need to configure PETSc with --with-64-bit-indices if you are<br>> dealing with problems with over 2 billion unknowns (in parallel) or if the<br>> sparse matrix will have more than 2 billion nonzeros on a single process.<br>
> You do not need to use --with-64-bit-indices just because you are using 64<br>> bit pointers, only for really large problems.<br>>><br>>><br>>> Barry<br>>><br>>>><br>>>> Thanks<br>
>>><br>>>><br>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Mohammad Mirzadeh <<a href="mailto:mirzadeh@gmail.com">mirzadeh@gmail.com</a>><br>> wrote:<br>>>> Hi guys,<br>>>><br>
>>> How can I use long int instead of PetscInt in the functions? Does simply<br>> changing the definition of PetscInt solve the problem?<br>>>><br>>>> Thanks<br>>>><br>>><br></div>