From: Lorenzo B. <bot...@gm...> - 2010-04-29 14:06:10
|
> > > > Roy, what's going on here? I thought you said that this option would do > nodal blocking (aka field interlacing). > > It does, but in dG dofs belong to elements not to nodes. No way to obtain nodal blocking... Lorenzo |
From: Roy S. <roy...@ic...> - 2010-04-29 14:18:21
|
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010, Lorenzo Botti wrote: > Roy, what's going on here? I thought you said that this option would > do > nodal blocking (aka field interlacing). > > > > It does, but in dG dofs belong to elements not to nodes. No way to obtain > nodal blocking... Sort of. With one dof per variable per DoFObject, indexing by-"node" before by-variable produces {u0, v0, u1, v1, ...} With DG linear elements you've got three dofs per variable per DoFObject, which should give you {u0, u1, u2, v0, v1, v2, u3, u4, u5, v3, v4, v5 ...} --- Roy |
From: Jed B. <je...@59...> - 2010-04-22 15:05:19
|
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:56:02 -0400, Boyce Griffith <gri...@ci...> wrote: > > > On 4/22/10 10:46 AM, Jed Brown wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:42:52 -0400, Boyce Griffith<gri...@ci...> wrote: > >> OK, then I am apparently confused about how PCFieldSplitSetIS is > >> intended to work. Does one call PCFieldSplitSetIS once for each field? > > > > Call it once per split (it creates a new split each time you call it). > > OK, got it. This was the source of my confusion --- I think I was > tripped up by the name of the function. I had assumed incorrectly that > PCFieldSplitSetIS would "reset" the IS associated with the PC rather > than "add" an additional IS. I should have looked at the source code! > Do you think it would be worth adding a note to this effect to the > documentation for PCFieldSplitSetIS? Thanks for your feedback, I'll clarify the documentation. Jed |