On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Roy Stogner <roystgnr@ices.utexas.edu> wrote:
1.  User code is responsible for correctly adding all extra entries to
each processor's sparsity rows on that processor.  This should still
work fine now.

2.  User code can add extra remote sparsity entries to the new
nonlocal part of the sparsity pattern, and then they get passed on to
the right processors in the communications step.  This would be work
after I move one line.

You know, supporting (2) wouldn't actually add anything to
computational cost and wouldn't interfere with support for (1).  I'm
leaning toward (2) now.  ;-)

(2) is fine with me...

We actually don't compute off-processor extra sparsity entries currently.  We do all the work to get all the info on the local processor that the local processor needs to make decisions about it's sparsity pattern and then just add the local entries.

I might rethink some of that code if there is some new capability now...