It's safe. I won't do siginficant ffc-side work now.
Martin
On 28 February 2013 23:12, Anders Logg <l...@simula.no> wrote:
> I assume it's safe to continue working in the
> ffc-uflacs-ufc-geometry-merged
> branch. Or should I fork it to a safer branch?
>
> --
> Anders
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 02:21:24PM +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> > Actually it is populated elsewhere (think it's in symbolics.py) in a
> helper
> > function using a different name for it, but the bug was in
> > quadraturetransformerbase.py where I had done some refactoring. It was
> only
> > triggered when using -e, which is probably because the demos don't cover
> > enough non-trivial situations.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> > On 28 February 2013 14:09, Anders Logg <l...@simula.no> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 02:00:27PM +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> > > > Found, fixed, and pushed to ffc-uflacs-ufc-geometry-merged/.
> > >
> > > Great, thanks.
> > >
> > > I spent a few hours last night trying to track down the bug but it was
> > > very difficult. In particular I couldn't figure out where the data
> > > ir["geo_consts"] is created.
> > >
> > > If I try a grep for it, I get this:
> > >
> > > $ rgrep geo_consts ffc/ | grep ir
> > > ffc/quadrature/quadratureoptimization.py: geo_consts =
> ir["geo_consts"]
> > > ffc/quadrature/quadraturerepresentation.py: ir["geo_consts"] = {}
> > > ffc/quadrature/quadraturegenerator.py: geo_consts =
> ir["geo_consts"]
> > >
> > > So it looks like it never gets set, but it definitely does, since it
> > > will be populated with the wrong data inside
> > > quadraturegenerator.py... (but now corrected).
> > >
> > > > I had to add -e to building of AdaptivePoisson.ufl in the ffc
> > > > regression test to make the bug visible there, which is why I didn't
> > > > catch it earlier. Although it had nothing to do with error control.
> > > > It would be good to add some demo files to ffc that cover more
> > > > corner cases, there's a lot of very similar forms there from a
> > > > testing perspective.
> > >
> > > Agree.
> > >
> > > > Now the only demos failing to build in dolfin are:
> > > >
> > > > pde/biharmonic
> > > > undocumented/dg-poisson
> > > > undocumented/stokes-stabilized
> > > > /undocumented/dg-poisson
> > > >
> > > > With errors like this:
> > > >
> > >
> /home/martinal/dev/fenics/dolfin/work/demo/pde/biharmonic/cpp/Biharmonic.h:2770:40:
> > > > error: ‘x_0’ was not declared in this scope
> > > >
> > >
> /home/martinal/dev/fenics/dolfin/work/demo/pde/biharmonic/cpp/Biharmonic.h:2771:39:
> > > > error: ‘J_0_11’ was not declared in this scope
> > > >
> > >
> /home/martinal/dev/fenics/dolfin/work/demo/undocumented/stokes-stabilized/cpp/Stokes.h:5258:38:
> > > > error: ‘x’ was not declared in this scope
> > > >
> > >
> /home/martinal/dev/fenics/dolfin/work/demo/undocumented/stokes-stabilized/cpp/Stokes.h:5259:37:
> > > > error: ‘J_11’ was not declared in this scope
> > > >
> > > > which looks like a few more geometry snippets fixes.
> > >
> > > Those are easy fixes. Will fix later today.
> > >
> > >
>
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
