Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Should we be calling destroy on parallel objects? #194

Open
JHopeCollins opened this issue Jun 28, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Should we be calling destroy on parallel objects? #194

JHopeCollins opened this issue Jun 28, 2024 · 0 comments
Assignees
@JHopeCollins
Labels
bug Something isn't working Core functionality Adding to the main paradiag functionality

Comments

@JHopeCollins
Copy link
Collaborator

JHopeCollins commented Jun 28, 2024 •
edited
Loading

  1. mpi4py-fftw subcomms in CirculantPC
  2. PETSc Vec in AllAtOnceFunction
  3. PETSc SNES, Mat, and Vec in AllAtOnceSolver
  4. PETSc KSP in LinearSolver

Can we do this with weakref.finalize like Firedrake does with comms?
@JHopeCollins JHopeCollins added bug Something isn't working Core functionality Adding to the main paradiag functionality labels Jun 28, 2024
@JHopeCollins JHopeCollins self-assigned this Jun 28, 2024
@JHopeCollins JHopeCollins changed the title Should we be calling Subcomm.destroy on the mpi4py-fftw subcomms in CirculantPC.__del__? Should we be calling destroy on parallel objects? Jul 8, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@JHopeCollins JHopeCollins

Labels
bug Something isn't working Core functionality Adding to the main paradiag functionality
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@JHopeCollins