[petsc-dev] FieldSplit restrictions

[Matthew Knepley]

I agree with Barry.

By "making command line splits permanent" you mean they are not overridden
by API splits?

  Matt

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>
> On May 15, 2010, at 5:09 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
>
> > Is there a case for putting a field in more than one split?
>
>     I believe absolutely. It is like overlapping Schwarz but not with
> overlapping grid points instead overlapping components.
>
>    Barry
>
> > The current
> > implementation allows this, but it makes it easier to accidentally have
> > more splits than you wanted.  The underlying challenge for Doing the
> > Right Thing is that the type is not normally set until
> > PCSetFromOptions().  Any calls to PCFieldSplitSet* will be ignored prior
> > to this.  The problem occurs when the user specifies
> > -pc_fieldsplit_*_fields AND the code adds splits with
> > PCFieldSplitSet(IS|Fields).  This used to create a bunch of splits which
> > is probably not what anyone asked for, I just pushed a some code that
> > makes command-line split definitions permanent.  This isn't entirely
> > satisfactory because there isn't currently a way to get rid of them, but
> > it's better than having lots of spurious splits.
> >
> > Lisandro, let me know if the current code behaves the way you expect.
> >
> > Jed
>
>


-- 
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments
is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments
lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20100515/13c83836/attachment.html>