Re: [Ffc] [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/dev] Rev 1594: Add comment about how to deal correctly with warnings vs expections.
Can't we just catch exceptions in the regression tests? Or is that inconvenient
because all function tests are in the same cpp file?
To implement your solution I guess we just need another function like the
set_float_formatting()
which does:
format["exception"] = format["warning"]
this function can be called from compiler.py when checking the options, will
that work?
Kristian
On 30 January 2010 00:23, wrote:
revno: 1594
committer: Anders Logg
branch nick: ffc-dev
timestamp: Sat 2010-01-30 00:21:06 +0100
message:
Add comment about how to deal correctly with warnings vs expections.
I think I figured out the correct solution, but it doesn't have to
be implemented now.
modified:
ffc/cpp.py
--
lp:~ffc-core/ffc/dev
https://code.launchpad.net/~ffc-core/ffc/dev
You are subscribed to branch lp:~ffc-core/ffc/dev.
To unsubscribe from this branch go to
https://code.launchpad.net/~ffc-core/ffc/dev/+edit-subscription.
=== modified file 'ffc/cpp.py'
--- ffc/cpp.py 2010-01-29 23:18:30 +
+++ ffc/cpp.py 2010-01-29 23:21:06 +
@@ -18,10 +18,17 @@
# FIXME: AL: This files needs cleaning up!
+# FIXME: AL: In places where we have non-implemented functions
+# FIXME: print a warning message instead of throwing an exception
+# FIXME: we should throw an exception and instead have a command-line
+# FIXME: option for converting exceptions to warnings that can be
+# FIXME: used from the regression test script.
+
# Formatting rules
# FIXME: KBO: format is a builtin_function, i.e., we should use a different
name.
format = {}
+
# Program flow
format.update({"return": lambda v: "return %s;" % str(v),
"grouping": lambda v: "(%s)" % v,
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] Regression test update
Anders Logg wrote: On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:11:19PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: On 29 January 2010 21:47, Anders Logg wrote: On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 07:26:46PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: On 29 January 2010 18:56, Anders Logg wrote: It keeps getting better. Here are the current tests that fail. Generating code (33 form files found) - ElementRestriction.ufl failed QuadratureElement.ufl I fixed QuadratureElement, but it won't work until we figure out how to handle the degrees of forms and elements. I've fixed the representation selection now so that quadrature is selected. It now fails with another error: Not with the latest FFC :) Yes, sorry my fault. I didn't notice you had pushed. It works perfectly now! :-) Looks like it's just the restriction thing that is missing now. The ElementRestriction demo is now running. Don't know if it is correct. Need reference. Constructing restricted elements should work for wild combinations of mixed elements etc, but something seems to go wrong in the monomialtransformation for the commented part of the ElementRestriction demo. -- Marie -- 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 ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] Regression test update
Marie Rognes wrote: > Anders Logg wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:11:19PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: >> >>> On 29 January 2010 21:47, Anders Logg wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 07:26:46PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > On 29 January 2010 18:56, Anders Logg wrote: > >> It keeps getting better. Here are the current tests that fail. >> >> Generating code (33 form files found) >> - >> ElementRestriction.ufl failed >> QuadratureElement.ufl >> > I fixed QuadratureElement, but it won't work until we figure out > how to handle the degrees of forms and elements. > I've fixed the representation selection now so that quadrature is selected. It now fails with another error: >>> Not with the latest FFC :) >>> >> >> Yes, sorry my fault. I didn't notice you had pushed. >> >> It works perfectly now! :-) >> >> Looks like it's just the restriction thing that is missing now. >> >> > > The ElementRestriction demo is now running. Don't know if it is > correct. Need reference. > > Constructing restricted elements should work for wild combinations of > mixed elements etc, > but something seems to go wrong in the monomialtransformation for the > commented > part of the ElementRestriction demo. > I've just fixed the commented parts. The syntax was wrong. Garth > -- > Marie > > >> -- >> 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 >> > > > ___ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc > Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Ffc] [nore...@launchpad.net: [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/dev] Rev 1601: Comment on domain2dim and entities_per_dim in fiatinterface.py.]
It would be good to collect all these in one place, but UFL cannot
depend on UFC and UFC cannot depend on UFL.
Are they needed in UFC? If not, it would be natural to collect them in
UFL. Then they can be used by both FFC and UFL.
--
Anders
--- Begin Message ---
revno: 1601
committer: Kristian B. Ølgaard
branch nick: dev
timestamp: Sat 2010-01-30 18:59:11 +0100
message:
Comment on domain2dim and entities_per_dim in fiatinterface.py.
modified:
ffc/fiatinterface.py
--
lp:~ffc-core/ffc/dev
https://code.launchpad.net/~ffc-core/ffc/dev
You are subscribed to branch lp:~ffc-core/ffc/dev.
To unsubscribe from this branch go to
https://code.launchpad.net/~ffc-core/ffc/dev/+edit-subscription.
=== modified file 'ffc/fiatinterface.py'
--- ffc/fiatinterface.py 2010-01-30 14:02:31 +
+++ ffc/fiatinterface.py 2010-01-30 17:59:11 +
@@ -24,6 +24,9 @@
# Cache for computed elements
_cache = {}
+# FIXME: KBO: Should stuff like, domain2dim and entities_per_dim be in UFC
+# instead? The same goes for similar dictionaries in UFL (geometry.py). After
+# all both FFC and UFL complies with UFC or not?
# Mapping from domain to dimension
domain2dim = {"vertex": 0,
"interval": 1,
--- End Message ---
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] [nore...@launchpad.net: [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/dev] Rev 1601: Comment on domain2dim and entities_per_dim in fiatinterface.py.]
On 30 January 2010 19:51, Anders Logg wrote:
It would be good to collect all these in one place, but UFL cannot
depend on UFC and UFC cannot depend on UFL.
Are they needed in UFC? If not, it would be natural to collect them in
UFL. Then they can be used by both FFC and UFL.
I don't think that we use it in UFC, but we do work with UFCInterval,
UFCTriangle etc. in FFC and DOLFIN.
Let's put it in UFL, it doesn't matter to UFC how the internal representation is as long
as the output of "interval" is a cell defined by the vertices [0, 1].
Kristian
--
Anders
-- Forwarded message --
From: nore...@launchpad.net
To: Anders Logg
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:01:15 -
Subject: [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/dev] Rev 1601: Comment on domain2dim and
entities_per_dim in fiatinterface.py.
revno: 1601
committer: Kristian B. Ølgaard
branch nick: dev
timestamp: Sat 2010-01-30 18:59:11 +0100
message:
Comment on domain2dim and entities_per_dim in fiatinterface.py.
modified:
ffc/fiatinterface.py
--
lp:~ffc-core/ffc/dev
https://code.launchpad.net/~ffc-core/ffc/dev
You are subscribed to branch lp:~ffc-core/ffc/dev.
To unsubscribe from this branch go to
https://code.launchpad.net/~ffc-core/ffc/dev/+edit-subscription.
=== modified file 'ffc/fiatinterface.py'
--- ffc/fiatinterface.py 2010-01-30 14:02:31 +
+++ ffc/fiatinterface.py 2010-01-30 17:59:11 +
@@ -24,6 +24,9 @@
# Cache for computed elements
_cache = {}
+# FIXME: KBO: Should stuff like, domain2dim and entities_per_dim be in UFC
+# instead? The same goes for similar dictionaries in UFL (geometry.py). After
+# all both FFC and UFL complies with UFC or not?
# Mapping from domain to dimension
domain2dim = {"vertex": 0,
"interval": 1,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAktkf7gACgkQTuwUCDsYZdG1RQCdEuIFoFEqoko5dp6sBf9WNlPU
dYQAoIa12l0MaD7EcuYgd6I6wqkOXTKP
=tXgZ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] [nore...@launchpad.net: [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/dev] Rev 1601: Comment on domain2dim and entities_per_dim in fiatinterface.py.]
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 08:08:26PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > > > On 30 January 2010 19:51, Anders Logg wrote: > >It would be good to collect all these in one place, but UFL cannot > >depend on UFC and UFC cannot depend on UFL. > > > >Are they needed in UFC? If not, it would be natural to collect them in > >UFL. Then they can be used by both FFC and UFL. > > I don't think that we use it in UFC, but we do work with UFCInterval, > UFCTriangle etc. in FFC and DOLFIN. > Let's put it in UFL, it doesn't matter to UFC how the internal representation > is as long as the output of "interval" is a cell defined by the vertices [0, > 1]. > > Kristian Sounds good. I have added a FIXME about it in the code. We can do another round of cleanups for 0.9.1 and fix it then. -- Anders signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/dev] Rev 1594: Add comment about how to deal correctly with warnings vs expections.
I thought about catching the exceptions, but it would make the ufctest.h file even more complicated. But the format["exception"] = format["warning"] trick is a good idea. I'm working on adding it. -- Anders On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 03:15:40PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > > Can't we just catch exceptions in the regression tests? Or is that > inconvenient because all function tests are in the same cpp file? > To implement your solution I guess we just need another function like the > set_float_formatting() > which does: > format["exception"] = format["warning"] > this function can be called from compiler.py when checking the options, will > that work? > > Kristian > > On 30 January 2010 00:23, wrote: > > > >revno: 1594 > >committer: Anders Logg > >branch nick: ffc-dev > >timestamp: Sat 2010-01-30 00:21:06 +0100 > >message: > > Add comment about how to deal correctly with warnings vs expections. > > I think I figured out the correct solution, but it doesn't have to > > be implemented now. > >modified: > > ffc/cpp.py > > > > > > ___ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc > Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Ffc] Release status update
Things look good from here. All FFC regression tests pass with a couple of exceptions and I believe those can be ignored (errors in earlier versions of FFC which have now been fixed). Marie and Kristian can correct me here if I'm wrong. The DOLFIN unit tests also pass and the buildbots are all green (except for the Windows buildbot which is currently not building DOLFIN). I'll try and merge the experimental FFC and FIAT branches with the main branches, recompile all DOLFIN forms and see what the buildbots say. -- Anders signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/dev] Rev 1602: Some comments, cleanups and added option -f convert_exceptions_to_warnings
On 30 January 2010 20:20, wrote:
revno: 1602
committer: Anders Logg
branch nick: ffc-dev
timestamp: Sat 2010-01-30 20:17:52 +0100
message:
Some comments, cleanups and added option -f convert_exceptions_to_warnings
I like the long name, it will discourage people to use it :)
Kristian
modified:
ffc/codegeneration.py
ffc/constants.py
ffc/cpp.py
ffc/evaluatebasis.py
ffc/evaluatebasisderivatives.py
ffc/fiatinterface.py
ffc/interpolatevertexvalues.py
ffc/quadratureelement.py
test/regression/test.py
--
lp:~ffc-core/ffc/dev
https://code.launchpad.net/~ffc-core/ffc/dev
You are subscribed to branch lp:~ffc-core/ffc/dev.
To unsubscribe from this branch go to
https://code.launchpad.net/~ffc-core/ffc/dev/+edit-subscription.
=== modified file 'ffc/codegeneration.py'
--- ffc/codegeneration.py 2010-01-28 17:27:57 +
+++ ffc/codegeneration.py 2010-01-30 19:17:52 +
@@ -11,11 +11,12 @@
__copyright__ = "Copyright (C) 2009 " + __author__
__license__ = "GNU GPL version 3 or any later version"
-# Last changed: 2010-01-28
+# Last changed: 2010-01-30
# FFC modules
from ffc.log import info, begin, end, debug_code
-from ffc.cpp import format, indent, set_float_formatting
+from ffc.cpp import format, indent
+from ffc.cpp import set_float_formatting, set_exception_handling
# FFC code generation modules
from ffc.evaluatebasis import _evaluate_basis, _evaluate_basis_all
@@ -35,8 +36,12 @@
begin("Compiler stage 4: Generating code")
- # Set floating point format
- set_float_formatting(options)
+ # FIXME: Document option -fconvert_exceptions_to_warnings
+ # FIXME: Remove option epsilon and just rely on precision?
+
+ # Set code generation options
+ set_float_formatting(int(options["precision"]))
+ set_exception_handling(options["convert_exceptions_to_warnings"])
# Extract representations
ir_elements, ir_dofmaps, ir_integrals, ir_forms = ir
=== modified file 'ffc/constants.py'
--- ffc/constants.py 2010-01-21 20:56:39 +
+++ ffc/constants.py 2010-01-30 19:17:52 +
@@ -4,26 +4,26 @@
__license__ = "GNU GPL version 3 or any later version"
# Modified by Kristian B. Oelgaard, 2009
-# Last changed: 2010-01-21
+# Last changed: 2010-01-30
from log import INFO
FFC_VERSION = "0.7.1"
-FFC_OPTIONS = {"format": "ufc", # code generation format
- "representation": "auto", # form representation / code
generation strategy
- "quadrature_rule": "auto", # quadrature rule used for
integration of element tensors
- "quadrature_degree": "auto", # quadrature degree used for
computing integrals
- "precision": "15", # precision used when writing
numbers
- "split": False, # split generated code into .h
and .cpp file
- "form_postfix": True, # postfix form name with "Function",
"LinearForm" or BilinearForm
- "cache_dir": None, # cache dir used by Instant
- "output_dir": ".", # output directory for generated
code
- "cpp optimize": False, # optimization for the JIT
compiler
- "optimize": False, # optimise the quadrature code
generation
- "log_level": INFO, # log level, displaying only
messages with level >= log_level
- "log_prefix": "", # log prefix
- "epsilon": 1e-14} # machine precision, used for
dropping zero terms
+FFC_OPTIONS = {"format": "ufc", # code generation
format
+ "representation": "auto", # form representation
/ code generation strategy
+ "quadrature_rule": "auto", # quadrature rule
used for integration of element tensors
+ "quadrature_degree": "auto", # quadrature degree
used for computing integrals
+ "precision": "15", # precision used when
writing numbers
+ "split": False, # split generated
code into .h and .cpp file
+ "form_postfix": True, # postfix form name with
"Function", "LinearForm" or BilinearForm
+ "cache_dir": None, # cache dir used by
Instant
+ "output_dir": ".", # output directory
for generated code
+ "cpp optimize": False, # optimization for
the JIT compiler
+ "optimize": False, # optimise the
quadrature code generation
+ "log_level": INFO, # log level, displaying
only messages with level >= log_level
+ "log_prefix": "", # log prefix
+ "epsilon": 1e-14, # machi
Re: [Ffc] Bug in quadrature code?
On 30 January 2010 00:24, Anders Logg wrote: On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:25:52PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: I don't know if it is a bug in the new quadrature code, it depends on how you look at it. :) The generated code in tabulate_tensor is exactly identical (apart from formatting of float values and some comments). However, this means that I no longer reset the values of A before going crazy with the += operator. This might explain the different results. I guess I should add back the reset A code since we decided to move away form allowing different representations on the same subdomain. Kristian I think that might be the problem. You need to set all entries to zero in case you happen not to assign to all of them in the code. DOLFIN does not reset the element tensor when it assembles so you need to do that as part of the generated code. Did you check this again? I have pushed a changeset that should fix this issue. Kristian -- Anders -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAktjbkEACgkQTuwUCDsYZdFKGQCfdU1VUCaPDmiYJEFD0C43L/lh 62oAnAnwoz7mz3Q8gGii8ctdjfqyZd7b =e4a3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] Release status update
On 30 January 2010 20:31, Anders Logg wrote: Things look good from here. All FFC regression tests pass with a couple of exceptions and I believe those can be ignored (errors in earlier versions of FFC which have now been fixed). Marie and Kristian can correct me here if I'm wrong. The only thing is evaluate_basis_derivatives (for BDM and N1curl) which I'm not sure is a 100% correct, but I'm working on some tests for that. The DOLFIN unit tests also pass and the buildbots are all green (except for the Windows buildbot which is currently not building DOLFIN). I'll try and merge the experimental FFC and FIAT branches with the main branches, recompile all DOLFIN forms and see what the buildbots say. Good idea, and good luck. Kristian -- Anders -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAktkiPsACgkQTuwUCDsYZdEmKACgib6DwMQ978c+OVwulqZXbRBS lCcAoJHJtTPE/orlbQQfWKTxDWVbnicG =JvOm -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] Bug in quadrature code?
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 08:32:50PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > > > On 30 January 2010 00:24, Anders Logg wrote: > >On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:25:52PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >> > >>I don't know if it is a bug in the new quadrature code, it depends on how > >>you look at it. :) > >>The generated code in tabulate_tensor is exactly identical (apart from > >>formatting of float values and some comments). > >>However, this means that I no longer reset the values of A before going > >>crazy with the += operator. This might explain the different results. I > >>guess I should add back the reset A code since we decided to move away form > >>allowing different representations on the same subdomain. > >> > >>Kristian > > > >I think that might be the problem. You need to set all entries to zero > >in case you happen not to assign to all of them in the code. DOLFIN > >does not reset the element tensor when it assembles so you need to do > >that as part of the generated code. > > Did you check this again? I have pushed a changeset that should fix this > issue. > > Kristian Yes, it works perfect. The DOLFIN unit tests all pass again. -- Anders signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] Release status update
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 08:34:56PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > > > On 30 January 2010 20:31, Anders Logg wrote: > >Things look good from here. All FFC regression tests pass with a > >couple of exceptions and I believe those can be ignored (errors in > >earlier versions of FFC which have now been fixed). Marie and Kristian > >can correct me here if I'm wrong. > > The only thing is evaluate_basis_derivatives (for BDM and N1curl) which I'm > not sure is a 100% correct, but I'm working on some tests for that. ok. > >The DOLFIN unit tests also pass and the buildbots are all green > >(except for the Windows buildbot which is currently not building > >DOLFIN). > > > >I'll try and merge the experimental FFC and FIAT branches with the > >main branches, recompile all DOLFIN forms and see what the buildbots > >say. > > Good idea, and good luck. Thanks. :-) -- Anders signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Ffc] buildbot failure in FEniCS Buildbot on ffc-jaunty-amd64
The Buildbot has detected a new failure of ffc-jaunty-amd64 on FEniCS Buildbot. Full details are available at: http://fenics.org:8080/builders/ffc-jaunty-amd64/builds/99 Buildbot URL: http://fenics.org:8080/ Buildslave for this Build: jaunty-amd64 Build Reason: Build Source Stamp: HEAD Blamelist: Anders Logg BUILD FAILED: failed ffc check sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Ffc] buildbot failure in FEniCS Buildbot on ffc-hardy-i386
The Buildbot has detected a new failure of ffc-hardy-i386 on FEniCS Buildbot. Full details are available at: http://fenics.org:8080/builders/ffc-hardy-i386/builds/100 Buildbot URL: http://fenics.org:8080/ Buildslave for this Build: hardy-i386 Build Reason: Build Source Stamp: HEAD Blamelist: Anders Logg BUILD FAILED: failed ffc check sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Ffc] buildbot failure in FEniCS Buildbot on ffc-linux64-exp
The Buildbot has detected a new failure of ffc-linux64-exp on FEniCS Buildbot. Full details are available at: http://fenics.org:8080/builders/ffc-linux64-exp/builds/98 Buildbot URL: http://fenics.org:8080/ Buildslave for this Build: linux64-exp Build Reason: Build Source Stamp: HEAD Blamelist: Anders Logg BUILD FAILED: failed ffc check sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] Release status update
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 08:52:54PM +0100, Anders Logg wrote: > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 08:34:56PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > > > > > > On 30 January 2010 20:31, Anders Logg wrote: > > >Things look good from here. All FFC regression tests pass with a > > >couple of exceptions and I believe those can be ignored (errors in > > >earlier versions of FFC which have now been fixed). Marie and Kristian > > >can correct me here if I'm wrong. > > > > The only thing is evaluate_basis_derivatives (for BDM and N1curl) which I'm > > not sure is a 100% correct, but I'm working on some tests for that. > > ok. > > > >The DOLFIN unit tests also pass and the buildbots are all green > > >(except for the Windows buildbot which is currently not building > > >DOLFIN). > > > > > >I'll try and merge the experimental FFC and FIAT branches with the > > >main branches, recompile all DOLFIN forms and see what the buildbots > > >say. > > > > Good idea, and good luck. > > Thanks. :-) Something is going wrong when I recompile the forms in DOLFIN. I'll look at tomorrow. -- Anders signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Ffc] Functional error
Quite a few of the ufl files in the DOLFIN demos are failing with the new FFC when the flag '-l dolfin' is used. Garth ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Ffc] Auto cell shape selection
I've run into a problem with a mixed element. Looks like the auto
selection of the cell shape isn't working (see last element below, cell
shape is "None"). Hopefully someone can see an easy fix, otherwise I can
try to simplify the problem case.
Garth
The cell shape of all elements MUST be equal:
(MixedElement(*[MixedElement(*[FiniteElement('Lagrange',
Cell('triangle', 1, Space(2)), 2), FiniteElement('Lagrange',
Cell('triangle', 1, Space(2)), 2)], **{'value_shape': (2,) }),
FiniteElement('Lagrange', Cell('triangle', 1, Space(2)), 1),
FiniteElement('Lagrange', Cell('triangle', 1, Space(2)), 1),
FiniteElement('Lagrange', Cell('triangle', 1, Space(2)), 1)],
**{'value_shape': (5,) }), FiniteElement('Discontinuous Lagrange',
Cell(None, 1, Space(?)), 0))
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] Auto cell shape selection
Garth N. Wells wrote:
> I've run into a problem with a mixed element. Looks like the auto
> selection of the cell shape isn't working (see last element below, cell
> shape is "None"). Hopefully someone can see an easy fix, otherwise I can
> try to simplify the problem case.
>
Same problem in
demo/pde/dg/advection-diffusion/python
Garth
> Garth
>
> The cell shape of all elements MUST be equal:
> (MixedElement(*[MixedElement(*[FiniteElement('Lagrange',
> Cell('triangle', 1, Space(2)), 2), FiniteElement('Lagrange',
> Cell('triangle', 1, Space(2)), 2)], **{'value_shape': (2,) }),
> FiniteElement('Lagrange', Cell('triangle', 1, Space(2)), 1),
> FiniteElement('Lagrange', Cell('triangle', 1, Space(2)), 1),
> FiniteElement('Lagrange', Cell('triangle', 1, Space(2)), 1)],
> **{'value_shape': (5,) }), FiniteElement('Discontinuous Lagrange',
> Cell(None, 1, Space(?)), 0))
>
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
> Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
