On 11/22/2016 06:40 AM, sudarshan kumar wrote:
In fact, apart from the interface values I need solution values at the
interior of each cell, usually for time dependent problem this is not
really needed ( only the limit value at the face is required from each side
of the face). In my
Rajat,
I don't know the exact cause of the problem, but...
Can we pass Triangulation::face_iterator by reference ?
I am trying to call the function
|
template
types::boundary_id
Fdm::get_face_boundary_id(typenameTriangulation::face_iterator &f_it)
{
}
|
...you can probably avoid it if you
Thanks Daniel,
I implemented this and it solved the issue that I was having.
Just a small question, instead of using
Triangulation::communicate_locally_moved_vertices , there is no harm in
moving
all locallyOwnedCells and ghost cells by one self. Right ?
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 7:15
Hello,
Can we pass Triangulation::face_iterator by reference ?
I am trying to call the function
template
types::boundary_id Fdm::get_face_boundary_id(typename Triangulation
::face_iterator &f_it)
{
}
by using
typename DofHandler::cell_iterator cell = dof_handler.begin();
for( face_num =
Yes the FEValues defined for each dell dinfo1.cell and dinfo2.cell
provides all the interior information of the cells( however I did not
succeed in the accuracy test so far, but it works ).
In fact, apart from the interface values I need solution values at
the interior of each cell,
Wouldn't it be easier to just create a copy of the vector by
ghosted_vector.reinit(locally_owned_set, locally_relevant_set, comm);
ghosted_vector = solution;
ghosted_vector.update_ghost_values();
not in my case, because i have a lot of vectors and if I can avoid, i would
prefer not to create
On 11/22/2016 06:13 AM, sudarshan kumar wrote:
Thanks a lot, yes it works. In fact I am working on time dependent
problem, and so in my method I need an adjacent interior value when I am at
the face. Thanks a lot.
But don't the FEValues objects you get for the face provide these values? I
Dear Daniel,
Thanks a lot, yes it works. In fact I am working on time dependent
problem, and so in my method I need an adjacent interior value when I am at
the face. Thanks a lot.
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Daniel Arndt <
d.ar...@math.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
> Sudarshan,
>
> Whe
> On 22 Nov 2016, at 13:16, Martin Kronbichler
> wrote:
>
>
> Wouldn't it be easier to just create a copy of the vector by
>
> ghosted_vector.reinit(locally_owned_set, locally_relevant_set, comm);
> ghosted_vector = solution;
> ghosted_vector.update_ghost_values();
not in my case, because i
Hi Martin,
> On 22 Nov 2016, at 13:13, Martin Kronbichler
> wrote:
>
> Hi Denis,
>
>> I wonder what is the best workaround given the fact that i have quite a
>> number of such vectors?
> You only see this for KellyErrorEstimator, right? Given that the error
> estimation is much more expensiv
Hi Denis,
Wouldn't it be easier to just create a copy of the vector by
ghosted_vector.reinit(locally_owned_set, locally_relevant_set, comm);
ghosted_vector = solution;
ghosted_vector.update_ghost_values();
The reason why there is a VectorView in the MatrixFreeOperators::Base
class is that I wa
Hi Denis,
I wonder what is the best workaround given the fact that i have quite
a number of such vectors?
You only see this for KellyErrorEstimator, right? Given that the error
estimation is much more expensive than the operator evaluation anyway, I
would suggest you do the copy exactly the wa
On 11/22/2016 04:27 AM, Ashkan Dorostkar wrote:
Next, I produce the right-hand side of my system by computing a surface
integral. In this Integral, I integrate a constant function times a basis
function.
One expects the resulting vector to be constant but I get different values in
it.
I have vis
Hi all,
I wrote a program where I use a HyperShell.
Next, I produce the right-hand side of my system by computing a surface
integral. In this Integral, I integrate a constant function times a basis
function.
One expects the resulting vector to be constant but I get different values
in it.
I ha
Ok, if someone comes acors this post, here's my solution so far:
VectorView view_src_in(vec[i].local_size(), vec[i].begin());
Vector copy_vec = view_src_in;
vec[i].reinit(tmp);
VectorView view_src_out(vec[i].local_size(), vec[i].begin());
static_cast&>(view_src_out) = copy_vec;
were "tmp" is
Actually i think we already do such tricks in
MFOperators::Base:: adjust_ghost_range_if_necessary()
https://www.dealii.org/developer/doxygen/deal.II/classMatrixFreeOperators_1_1Base.html#aceacba70efc9e2490e21f43734556951
Looking at the code
https://www.dealii.org/developer/doxygen/deal.II/operat
There is a complication of using LA::distributed::Vector initialized with
MatrixFree::initialize_dof_vector() in Kelly estimator.
A naïve usage would lead to a problem which obviously has to do with
locally relevant cells and their dofs:
Number
dealii::LinearAlgebra::distributed::Vector::op
17 matches
Mail list logo
