On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Jed Brown <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:jedbrown@mcs.anl.gov">jedbrown@mcs.anl.gov</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="im"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 21:42, Matthew Knepley <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:knepley@gmail.com" target="_blank">knepley@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div>I don&#39;t like this because it would mean calling VecSetUp() all over the place. Couldn&#39;t the ghosting flag be on the same<div>level as the sizes?</div><div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div><div>Maybe VecSetUp() is wrong because that would imply collective. This memory allocation is simple and need not be collective.</div>

<div><br></div><div>Ghosting information is an array, so placing it in VecSetSizes() would seem unnatural to me. I wouldn&#39;t really want VecSetGhosts(Vec,PetscInt,const PetscInt*) to be order-dependent with respect to VecSetType(), but maybe the VecSetUp() would be too messy.</div>

</div>
</blockquote></div><br>I needed to be more specific. I think VecSetSizes(local, global, ghost) would work. Then VecSetGhostIndices() can be called anytime,<div>and even remapped.</div><div><br></div><div>   Matt<br clear="all">
<div><br></div>-- <br>What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead.<br>-- Norbert Wiener<br>
</div>