<div class="gmail_extra">On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Sanjay Govindjee <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:s_g@berkeley.edu" target="_blank">s_g@berkeley.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
We have some code that has worked up through petsc-3.1 and we are in the process of updating it to petsc-3.2.<br>
<br>
One thing that I can not find mentioned in the change logs (looking all the way back to petsc-2.1.0) or the FAQs is the elimination of the VecValid and MatValid tests.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>In C, this is now the macro PetscValidHeaderSpecific(). This check now happens in every function call. What</div>
<div>logic would need to look for a corrupt Vec beyond CHKERRQ?</div><div><br></div><div> Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div> Matt</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
We used to perform operations like:<br>
<br>
call VecValid(xvec, chk, ierr)<br>
<br>
if(chk .eqv. PETSC_FALSE) then<br>
call VecCreate (PETSC_COMM_WORLD, xvec, ierr)<br>
call VecSetSizes (xvec, numpeq, PETSC_DECIDE, ierr)<br>
call VecSetFromOptions(xvec, ierr)<br>
else<br>
....<br>
endif<br>
<br>
But it seems VecValid and MatValid have been eliminated. Is there a reason for this? or have<br>
I made a mistake? Is there a replacement test for invalid Vec and Mat pointers?<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
-sanjay<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><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>
</div>