On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:44:24AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > On Tuesday April 26 2011 08:42:32 Anders Logg wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:39:30AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > > > On Tuesday April 26 2011 08:33:11 Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > > On 26/04/11 16:31, Johan Hake wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday April 26 2011 08:16:29 Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > > >> On 26/04/11 16:07, Anders Logg wrote: > > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:59:52PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > > >>>> On 26/04/11 15:55, Anders Logg wrote: > > > > >>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:45:22PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > > >>>>>> On 26/04/11 13:51, Anders Logg wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 02:00:50PM +0200, Anders Logg wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>> It feels good that you trust me enough to handle it. ;-) > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Will add it sometime this afternoon and then we can revisit > > > > >>>>>>>> the JIT compiler caching. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> I'm getting confused here... Looking at preprocess.py in UFL, I > > > > >>>>>>> see > > > > > > > > > > this: > > > > >>>>>> It is confusing. Does the function 'preprocess' do anything that > > > > >>>>>> the old FormData class didn't? It would be easier to follow if > > > > >>>>>> Form just had a member function form_data() that computes and > > > > >>>>>> stores data (like it used to), or if Form had a 'preprocess' > > > > >>>>>> function. Having the function preprocess return a new form is > > > > >>>>>> really confusing. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I don't find that particularly confusing. It's the same as > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> refined_mesh = refine(mesh) > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Which is the whole problem. By creating a new object, FormData is > > > > >>>> thrown away. The preprocessing should just compute some more data, > > > > >>>> just like we *don't* do > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> initialised_mesh = mesh.init(0) > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> What was wrong with Martin's original design that necessitated the > > > > >>>> change? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> As I explained, I thought it was better to have an explicit call to > > > > >>> preprocess since that makes it clear that one makes a call to a > > > > >>> function which may take some time to execute (instead of just > > > > >>> calling a member function which seems to just return some data). > > > > >>> > > > > >>> But as I say above: I added the caching back at some point (maybe > > > > >>> even the day after I removed it 2 years ago) so we don't need to > > > > >>> discuss why I removed it (as I realized myself I shouldn't have > > > > >>> removed it and added it back a long time ago). > > > > >>> > > > > >>> What has me confused now is that the caching seems to be in place > > > > >>> but we still need the extra caching in FFC/DOLFIN and I don't see > > > > >>> why. > > > > >> > > > > >> Because preprocess returns a new form, e.g. define a form > > > > >> > > > > >> a = u*v*dx > > > > >> jit(a) > > > > >> > > > > >> Inside jit, > > > > >> > > > > >> a.form_data() is None: > > > > >> b = preprocess(a) # b now has data attached, but a doesn't > > > > >> > > > > >> else: > > > > >> b = a > > > > >> > > > > >> Now 'b' has been preprocessed, and has form data attached, but 'a' > > > > >> doesn't. Calling 'jit(a)' again, the code will never enter the > > > > >> 'else' part of the clause because 'a' never gets any form data. > > > > >> Johan has added some code FFC that attaches the form data of 'b' to > > > > >> 'a', but it is a bit clumsy. > > > > > > > > > > No, it was already attached. I just made ffc use it. > > > > > > > > Didn't you add the line > > > > > > > > form._form_data = preprocessed_form.form_data() > > > > > > No, I added: > > > preprocessed_form = form.form_data()._form > > > > > > I think the thing here is that form_data has always had a preprocessed > > > form. Someone (lets not point fingers!) thought that was too much magic > > > and added an > > > > > > explicit need to call: > > > form = preprocess(form) > > > > > > in jit_compiler(). This made the design more complicated and also > > > introduced a cirucular dependency, as the return preprocessed form need > > > to know of its form_data, but the form_data already had a reference to > > > the preprocessed form. The latter is what I used in the one line I > > > altered. > > > > No, it made the design cleaner since it makes clear something needs to > > happen to get the metadata: a call to preprocess. > > > > Where did you add this line? > > I change > > preprocessed_form = form > > to: > > preprocessed_form = form.form_data()._form
Yes, but where? I've fixed the bug now in preprocess.py (attaching to both forms). Does that help? -- Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
