<div dir="ltr">Alright. Thanks Matt :)<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Matthew Knepley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:knepley@gmail.com">knepley@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Mohammad Mirzadeh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mirzadeh@gmail.com" target="_blank">mirzadeh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Hi guys,<div><br></div><div>This is rather a simple question. For objects that have both sequential and parallel versions (like Vec, Mat, etc), is there any benefit in directly calling to the sequential version instead of calling to the generic version (like VecCreateSeq instead of VecCreate) and running the code with 1 proc? I've always thought that PETSc would directly call the appropriate function at run time. Is this not the case?</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Yes, this is the case. There is no benefit.</div><div><br></div><div> Matt</div><div class="im"><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div>I'm writing some wrappers for my code and i'm thinking if I need to consider different classes for seq and parallel or if I could get away by just working with the generic functions.</div><div>
<br></div><div>Thanks a lot,</div><div>Mohammad</div></div>
</blockquote></div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead.<br>
-- Norbert Wiener<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>