<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 22, 2012, at 8:14 PM, Dmitry Karpeev wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">It sounds like you need to write a new PC implementation, possibly reusing pieces of PCASM.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks! But then it will be too much work, I think, and what I tried to avoid.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Then you have control of what is being set up and when. Otherwise you are essentially hacking</div><div>PCASM and using its internal subsolvers, which are only available after PCSetUp(). </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes. Maybe I should follow your advice. Thanks again!</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div> PCCOMPOSITE doesn't look like the right framework for this.</div><div><br><div>Dmitry.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Hui Zhang <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike.hui.zhang@hotmail.com" target="_blank">mike.hui.zhang@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
I have got a new question. I'm now constructing a PCComposite from PCASM and another PCKSP (coarse<br>
problem). And construction of PCKSP needs to use the subksp's of PCASM. So I need to PCSetUp on the<br>
PCASM, right? But the KSP using PCComposite would setup PCASM again. How can I avoid twice setup<br>
of PCASM ?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Hui<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></body></html>