Thanks a lot. It really helps. We should add those comments to the wiki and
keep it updated.
So there is no class support Lagrange based discontinuous polynomial space?
If the answer is no, I think it is pretty easy to add one. Just need the
shape function and the DOF locations.
About the efficiency, is there any paper or presentation talking about the
efficiency? Or is there any people compare the efficiency of solver based
on libmesh or other lib like deal.ii etc? It is really a big issue which
should be considered before people decided to put a lot of effort on a lib.
Thanks a lot.
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Roy Stogner <roystgnr@...:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, Lei Shi wrote:
> I'm pretty new to this project. thanks for your fabulous job. I want
>> to implement a hp-adaptive dg solver based on libmesh. So I read
>> that famous paper, libMesh: A C++ Library for Parallel Adaptive Mesh
>> Refinement/Coarsening Simulations. However, it mentioned that the
>> p-adaptation will be support in the future. I know it is kind of
>> outdated. So does libmesh support p-adaptation now?
> Yes, but in a couple critical functions (constraint equation
> generation, solution projection) we only support p-adaptivity using
> hierarchic bases, where the set for every degree p is a subset of the
> set for p+1.
> IIRC that describes all of our discontinous element types, though, so
> it shouldn't be an issue using DG.
> There may still be a bug in some of our hp constraint equation code in
> a couple corner cases. However if you're doing DG there's no
> constraint equations and again the concern won't apply.
> P.S. How about the test coverage of the code? I found out the test
>> project is kind of old and the lasted committing is several years
>> ago. Does libmesh have unit test or regression test? Thanks a lot.
> Our unit testing is deplorable - the unit test suite gets
> automatically run every several hours, but as you noticed the tests
> are quite old and the test coverage is very incomplete. If anyone has
> enough free time or gets bored enough to contribute to these, it would
> be highly appreciated.
> Our regression testing is a little better - the examples in libMesh
> itself aren't rigorous enough as regression tests (they effectively
> just catch logic failures using library internal assertions and gross
> accuracy failures via manual examination), but both UT-Austin and INL
> have a few suites of libMesh application tests that get run regularly
> with varying configurations and parameter settings and get tested via
> automatic solution comparison.
> I say only "a little better" because there are still gaps in the
> feature coverage - I don't think we've got anything that hits
> p-adaptivity, in particular.