[Ffc] IMPORTANT: New mailing list!

The mailing lists on Launchpad are now officially retired. Please everyone subscribe to the new mailing list here: http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics The address for the new list is simply fen...@fenicsproject.org Some comments: - We will have one single list for all discuss

Re: [Ffc] Fwd: Issue with optimized quadrature representation

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:13:57PM +, Garth N. Wells wrote: > On 28 February 2013 22:53, Anders Logg wrote: > > ok, good. > > > > Things are building mostly fine now except for some DOLFIN unit tests > > related to new interfaces for finite_element::evaluate_foo. &g

Re: [Ffc] Fwd: Issue with optimized quadrature representation

f_map and cell classes across DOLFIN and UFC. -- Anders On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:43:44PM +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > It's safe. I won't do siginficant ffc-side work now. > > Martin > > > On 28 February 2013 23:12, Anders Logg wrote: > > > I a

Re: [Ffc] Fwd: Issue with optimized quadrature representation

er > 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 > > >

Re: [Ffc] Fwd: Issue with optimized quadrature representation

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_cons

[Ffc] Issue with optimized quadrature representation

I'm trying to get DOLFIN to build against the new UFC branch (the foo-ufc-geometry branches) and it works mostly ok now, but for a few demos, something strange happens in the optimized quadrature code. One example that fails is AdaptivePoisson.ufl/h in demo/undocumented/auto-adaptive-poisson/. In

Re: [Ffc] Adding code generation backends to FFC and generating C code

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:26:35PM +, Florian Rathgeber wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 26/02/13 09:33, Martin Sandve Aln￦s wrote: > > Just want to chip in here. FYI I'm currently adding a new > > representation to ffc based on lp:uflacs, where I reuse some of th

Re: [Ffc] Adding code generation backends to FFC and generating C code

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 04:07:52PM +, Florian Rathgeber wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > FFC generates C++ code, which makes sense given that the UFC interface > is specified in C++. It is however a limitation when you want to use > FFC to generate code for another i

Re: [Ffc] New regression test output format in FFC

Very nice. This is the proper way to do it. -- Anders On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 09:54:10PM +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > I've implemented a regression test output format that includes the > hierarchial structure of the forms, written as .json files (with a > limited feature set, not a

Re: [Ffc] [Dorsal] OSX C++ compiler?

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 03:56:47PM +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > On 23 March 2012 15:11, Anders Logg wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 03:06:29PM +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > >> I just pushed to lp:~martinal/ufl/work a patch with > >> short Form.signatur

Re: [Ffc] Speeding up form compilation

On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:46:20AM +0100, Harish Narayanan wrote: > Dear all, > > I am trying to run some problems which involve somewhat complex > variational forms which FFC takes ages (O(1 day)) to compile. Is there > any clear documentation on the strategies one should apply to speed > things u

[Ffc] [nore...@launchpad.net: [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/main] Rev 1738: Issue warning when more than 100 integration points are used to integrate a form.]

Great! -- Anders --- Begin Message --- revno: 1738 committer: Kristian B. Ølgaard branch nick: ffc timestamp: Wed 2011-11-30 23:39:03 +0100 message: Issue warning when more than 100 integration points are used to integrate a form. mo

Re: [Ffc] Buildbot problem

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 09:11:58PM +0100, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > On 29 November 2011 14:00, Anders Logg wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 01:49:15PM +0100, Johannes Ring wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Anders Logg wrote: > >> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011

Re: [Ffc] Buildbot problem

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 01:49:15PM +0100, Johannes Ring wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Anders Logg wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:15:31PM +0100, Johannes Ring wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Anders Logg wrote: > >> > The buildbot is br

Re: [Ffc] Buildbot problem

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:15:31PM +0100, Johannes Ring wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Anders Logg wrote: > > The buildbot is broken after yesterday's release. The release script > > was partly broken so I ended up redoing the release a couple of timees > >

[Ffc] Buildbot problem

The buildbot is broken after yesterday's release. The release script was partly broken so I ended up redoing the release a couple of timees before everything worked. The strange thing now is that the tests work fine locally in my repository. I have committed and bzr seems to think I have nothing t

Re: [Ffc] buildbot failure in FEniCS Buildbot on ffc-oneiric-i386

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 09:28:37AM +0100, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > On 22 November 2011 11:29, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > > > > On 22. nov. 2011, at 11:14, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > > > >> On 22 November 2011 03:13, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > >>> > >>> I think that there is some arbitraryness in the

Re: [Ffc] Bug leading to silent failure

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 07:48:19PM +0100, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > On 11/20/2011 07:29 PM, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >I'm trying to track down a bug that leads to a silent failure. I'm as > >far as a call to the FFC function > > > >ffc.tensor.estimate_cost > > > >which fails to return. This funct

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] About branching

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:25:07AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote: > On 31 October 2011 10:21, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > > On 31 October 2011 11:15, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > >> I think we can avoid making the release branches for > >> non-dolfin projects until someone wants to add new features.

Re: [Ffc] Strange terminal output from ffc tests

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 04:57:18PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > This makes no sense: > evaluate_basis ok: error = 4.9578589e-09 (tol: 1e-14) > I guess the tolerance printed here is a fixed string? There are two tolerances, one "soft" and one "hard" (for handling rounding errors). If t

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] Changing Constant from DG0 to Real in UFL?

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 04:47:03PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > I want to change ('',Vector,Tensor)Constant from DG0 to Real in UFL, > as has been done already in PyDOLFIN. It seems to me that only a > couple of lines need to be changed in UFL, and FFC will be unaffected, > but I haven't tri

Re: [Ffc] Tests failing

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 01:30:27PM +0200, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > On 10/14/2011 11:37 AM, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > >On 14 October 2011 10:51, Anders Logg wrote: > >>The FFC tests are failing on my laptop. I might have screwed something > >>up locally but it might als

[Ffc] Tests failing

The FFC tests are failing on my laptop. I might have screwed something up locally but it might also be related to updating to Ubuntu 11.10 last night which has GCC 4.6.1-9ubuntu3. Here's the error I get: Verifying element 2 of 143: > GCC compilation failed. element: >, In file included from eva

Re: [Ffc] [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/main] Rev 1684: Change code generation for evaluate_basis and

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:24:22PM +0200, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > On 09/12/11 21:56, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > >On 12 September 2011 21:36, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > >>On 09/12/11 20:00, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > >>>On 09/12/11 19:54, Garth N. Wells wrote: > On 12 September 2011 18:49, Marie E.

Re: [Ffc] Not writing generated code to file

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:07:42PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > A recent commit to instant fixes this problem. >   > The reason this has been a problem before is that the filelocking system used > by instant does not work for NFS. Which many of use when submitting jobs to a > cluster. >   > I found a

Re: [Ffc] Exposure of all FFC parameters to the PyDOLFIN interface

On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 09:49:22AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > Hello! > > I just realized that there are a whole bunch of command line options to ffc: > > -f foo > > which are not exposed in the parameter dict provided by FFC. This means > that these are not available from the python interface of

Re: [Ffc] Not writing generated code to file

On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 10:38:37AM -0500, Andy Ray Terrel wrote: > On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Johan Hake wrote: > > On Monday August 8 2011 04:33:41 Anders Logg wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 08:49:24PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > >> > Hello! > >>

Re: [Ffc] Not writing generated code to file

On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 08:49:24PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > Hello! > > Why do we write generated code to file when the jit compilation is used? This > introduce a cause of error which has annoyed me for some time now. Instead of > writing the code to file and then in ufc.build we just read the fi

Re: [Ffc] Large generated code

On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 12:17:15PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > FFC can generated *very* large files with the tensor contraction > approach, especially when auxiliary problems like error estimation are > used. This makes compilation slow, and possibly fail. > > The array A in the generated code o

[Ffc] Multi-type parameters?

I'm thinking of how to handle this bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ffc/+bug/787010 I see two solutions: 1. Handle parameters with dynamical type in C++ (fairly easy to add). 2. Not use parameters that may change type in FFC (from "auto" to an int). -- Anders __

Re: [Ffc] Buildbot problems

On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 12:25:49AM +0200, Anders Logg wrote: > On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 04:13:50PM +0200, Johannes Ring wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Anders Logg wrote: > > > Anyone knows what's up with the maverick buildbot for FFC? It reports > > >

Re: [Ffc] Buildbot problems

On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 04:13:50PM +0200, Johannes Ring wrote: > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Anders Logg wrote: > > Anyone knows what's up with the maverick buildbot for FFC? It reports > > strange errors: > > > > http://fenicsproject.org:8080/builders/ffc-ma

[Ffc] Buildbot problems

Anyone knows what's up with the maverick buildbot for FFC? It reports strange errors: http://fenicsproject.org:8080/builders/ffc-maverick-i386/builds/245/steps/ffc%20check/logs/error.log It works on my laptop and on the other buildbots. This does not seem to be round-off errors. I have run the U

Re: [Ffc] [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/main] Rev 1637: Remove debug output

On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 08:46:53AM +0200, Johannes Ring wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Johan Hake wrote: > > On Wednesday May 18 2011 14:35:47 Anders Logg wrote: > >> In the Debian package? > > > > Definiately. > > I can patch the Debian p

Re: [Ffc] [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/main] Rev 1637: Remove debug output

In the Debian package? Or should we make a 0.9.11-1 (or should it be -2)? -- Anders On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 01:29:56PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > Might want to backport this commit into the release. > > Johan > > On Wednesday May 18 2011 13:20:39 nore...@launchpad.net wrote: > > ---

Re: [Ffc] [Dolfin] New releases

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 07:16:03PM +0200, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > On 05/16/2011 08:13 PM, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > > > > > >On 16. mai 2011, at 19:58, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > > > >>On 16 May 2011 14:33, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > >>> > >>>On 16. mai 2011, at 14:17, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > >>>

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Dolfin] New releases

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 04:42:29PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > On 16 May 2011 16:35, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > > > > On 16/05/11 13:33, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > >> > >> On 16. mai 2011, at 14:17, Kristian Ølgaard > >> wrote: > >> > >>> On 16 May 2011 13:49, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > >>>

Re: [Ffc] [Dolfin] [Ufl] New releases

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 03:40:32PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > On 16 May 2011 15:00, Anders Logg wrote: > > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 02:53:03PM +0200, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 16. mai 2011, at 13:07, Anders Logg wrote: > >

Re: [Ffc] [Dolfin] [Ufl] New releases

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 02:53:03PM +0200, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > > > On 16. mai 2011, at 13:07, Anders Logg wrote: > > > The suggested plan is as follows: > > > > 1. Release 0.9.11now > > 2. Release 0.9.122011-05-31 > > 3. Release 1.0.0-rc1 20

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Dolfin] New releases

The suggested plan is as follows: 1. Release 0.9.11now 2. Release 0.9.122011-05-31 3. Release 1.0.0-rc1 2011-06-14 No new features should be added after this point and all known bugs (unless we decide to push them to post 1.0) should have been fixed. 4. Release rc2, rc3, ... if necessary

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 09:24:02AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > On Tuesday April 26 2011 09:18:15 Garth N. Wells wrote: > > On 26/04/11 17:16, Anders Logg wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 06:12:26PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > > >> On 26 April 2011 18:10, Jo

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 06:12:26PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > On 26 April 2011 18:10, Johan Hake wrote: > > On Tuesday April 26 2011 09:01:35 Anders Logg wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:44:24AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > > > On Tuesday April 26 2

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 09:01:37AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > On Tuesday April 26 2011 08:48:33 Garth N. Wells wrote: > > On 26/04/11 16:44, Johan Hake wrote: > > > On Tuesday April 26 2011 08:42:32 Anders Logg wrote: > > >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:39:30AM -0700

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

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,

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

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: &

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

> preprocessed form to the form_data to avoid circular dependency. We also need > to make preprocess return the form_data instead of the preprocessed form. > > Johan > > > On Tuesday April 26 2011 07:55:44 Anders Logg wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:45:22PM +0100

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

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 Tu

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

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

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

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,

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

> Martin > > > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > On 26 April 2011 09:20, Garth N. Wells > > <mailto:gn...@cam.ac.uk> > > > > <mailto:

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

> > > > On 26 April 2011 09:20, Garth N. Wells > <mailto:gn...@cam.ac.uk> > > > <mailto:gn...@cam.ac.uk <mailto:gn...@cam.ac.uk>>> wrote: > > > > > > Martin:

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

immutable. > > > > Martin > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > On 26 April 2011 09:20, Garth N. Wells > <mailto:gn...@cam.ac.uk> > > > <mailto:gn...@cam.ac.uk <mailto:gn...@cam.ac.uk>>>

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

gt; Martin: Any problem if we apply this patch to UFL? > > > > Garth > > > > On 25/04/11 22:50, Johan Hake wrote: > > > This should be fixed now. > > > > > > I do not see why we introduced the memory cach

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 03:28:30PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > On Monday April 25 2011 15:19:20 Anders Logg wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 03:14:45PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > > > On Monday April 25 2011 15:04:43 Anders Logg wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 201

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 03:14:45PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > On Monday April 25 2011 15:04:43 Anders Logg wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:56:25PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 25/04/11 22:48, Anders Logg wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:41:58

Re: [Ffc] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:10:59PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 25/04/11 23:04, Anders Logg wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:56:25PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 25/04/11 22:48, Anders Logg wrote: > >>> On Mon,

Re: [Ffc] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:56:25PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 25/04/11 22:48, Anders Logg wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:41:58PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 25/04/11 22:33, Anders Logg wrote: > >>> On Mon,

Re: [Ffc] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:41:58PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 25/04/11 22:33, Anders Logg wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:26:18PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 25/04/11 22:08, Anders Logg wrote: > >>> On Mo

Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

ells wrote: > > On 25/04/11 22:08, Anders Logg wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 07:40:21PM -, Garth Wells wrote: > > >> On 25/04/11 20:00, Johan Hake wrote: > > >>> On Monday April 25 2011 11:26:36 Garth Wells wrote: > > >>>> On 2

Re: [Ffc] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:26:18PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 25/04/11 22:08, Anders Logg wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 07:40:21PM -, Garth Wells wrote: > >> On 25/04/11 20:00, Johan Hake wrote: > >>> On Monday April 25 2011 11:26:36 Garth W

Re: [Ffc] [Bug 769811] [NEW] JIT cache problem with id(form)

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 07:40:21PM -, Garth Wells wrote: > On 25/04/11 20:00, Johan Hake wrote: > > On Monday April 25 2011 11:26:36 Garth Wells wrote: > >> On 25/04/11 18:51, Anders Logg wrote: > >>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 05:11:41PM -, Garth Wells wrote: &

Re: [Ffc] buildbot failure in FEniCS Buildbot on ffc-lucid-amd64

On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 08:31:08AM +0100, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > > > On 03/09/2011 08:29 AM, Anders Logg wrote: > >Buildbot looks green now for FFC. > > I regenerated the references. > > The mac-bot complains because of differences between 0.55 and > 0.550

Re: [Ffc] buildbot failure in FEniCS Buildbot on ffc-lucid-amd64

On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 06:00:36AM +0100, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > On 03/09/2011 05:46 AM, Johan Hake wrote: > >I think I have fixed what ever problem I caused for the Buildbot. If anyone > >with more FFC experience can have a look at the buildbot I would be very > >hapy! > > Regression tests stil

Re: [Ffc] buildbot failure in FEniCS Buildbot on ffc-lucid-amd64

Buildbot looks green now for FFC. -- Anders On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 08:46:14PM -0800, Johan Hake wrote: > I think I have fixed what ever problem I caused for the Buildbot. If anyone > with more FFC experience can have a look at the buildbot I would be very hapy! > Johan > > On Tuesday March 8 2

[Ffc] Version 0.9.9 of ffc released

0.9.9 - Updates for UFC 2.0 - Set minimal degree to 1 in automatic degree selection for expressions - Add command-line option -f no_ferari - Add support for plotting of elements - Add utility function compute_tensor_representation 0.9.4 - Added memory cache in jit(), for preprocessed forms -

Re: [Ffc] FFC buildbot

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 05:25:58PM +0100, Anders Logg wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 05:13:05PM +0100, Johannes Ring wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Anders Logg wrote: > > > Why is the FFC buildbot failing? > > > > > > The tests run fine on my la

Re: [Ffc] FFC buildbot

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 05:47:42PM +0100, Johannes Ring wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Anders Logg wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 05:13:05PM +0100, Johannes Ring wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Anders Logg wrote: > >> > W

Re: [Ffc] FFC buildbot

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 05:57:23PM +0100, Johannes Ring wrote > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > > On 02/22/2011 05:38 PM, Johannes Ring wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Anders Logg  wrote: > >>> > >>>

Re: [Ffc] FFC buildbot

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 05:13:05PM +0100, Johannes Ring wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Anders Logg wrote: > > Why is the FFC buildbot failing? > > > > The tests run fine on my laptop and bzr says my branch is up-to-date. > > I don't know but I got the

[Ffc] FFC buildbot

Why is the FFC buildbot failing? The tests run fine on my laptop and bzr says my branch is up-to-date. -- Anders ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : h

Re: [Ffc] [Bug 711140] [NEW] _memory_check gets stuck at 10

On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 09:30:18AM -, Mikael Mortensen wrote: > Public bug reported: > > The _memory_check in ffc/jitcompiler.py gets stuck at 10. In the code > > else: > preprocessed_form = preprocess(form, common_cell=common_cell) > _memory_cache[(id(form), repr(form))] = prep

Re: [Ffc] [Dolfin] Buildbot

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 06:50:07PM +, Garth N. Wells wrote: > I've added the Cahn-Hilliard demo to the regression tests, and the > Python version fails because of the line > > parameters["form_compiler"]["optimize"] = True > > Could be an FFC issue? Looks like a FErari bug. It works either

[Ffc] [nore...@launchpad.net: [Branch ~dolfin-core/dolfin/main] Rev 5406: Updates to dolfin-plot. Only rotate by default if 3D and allow]

Good. The rotate only in 3D feature should probably go into plot.py in FFC instead. -- Anders --- Begin Message --- revno: 5406 committer: Marie E. Rognes branch nick: dolfin timestamp: Wed 2010-12-22 15:34:29 +0100 message: Updates t

Re: [Ffc] [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/main] Rev 1525: Add support for plotting elements (currently only Lagrange but others

On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 08:41:11AM -0800, Johan Hake wrote: > On Tuesday December 7 2010 08:38:38 Anders Logg wrote: > > Ctrl-c... :-) > > :) > > And gracefully quit? Not so gracefully but at least it quits. Not sure what the best way to quit is. Probably some signal I ne

Re: [Ffc] [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/main] Rev 1525: Add support for plotting elements (currently only Lagrange but others

--- > > revno: 1525 > > committer: Anders Logg > > branch nick: ffc-main > > timestamp: Tue 2010-12-07 17:10:49 +0100 > > message: > > Add support for plotting elements (currently only Lagrange but others > > will follow). Try > > > >

Re: [Ffc] buildbot failure in FEniCS Buildbot on ffc-lucid-amd64

; > Buildbot URL: http://fenicsproject.org:8080/ > > Buildslave for this Build: lucid-amd64 > > Build Reason: > Build Source Stamp: HEAD > Blamelist: Anders Logg > > BUILD FAILED: failed ffc check > > sincerely, > -The Buildbot > > >

Re: [Ffc] Patch for a bugg in FFC

Great, pushed. -- Anders On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:43:53PM -0800, Johan Hake wrote: > Hello! > > A well hidden bug is fixed in the attached patch. > > When unused variables are removed by just removing the line it is defined on > it is good to define the variable on a single line. Otherwise the

Re: [Ffc] All components of a list tensor most provide same arguments?

I don't know what that means, but I assume the 0.0 is the problem. Does it work if you write Zero()? -- Anders On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:36:54PM +0100, Patrick Riesen wrote: > hello, > i'm trying to update my code for the most recent fenics development > versions. > > compiling+demos for ffc/

Re: [Ffc] [nore...@launchpad.net: [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/main] Rev 1520: See if -O2 flag makes buildbot happy]

On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 10:54:27PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 04/09/10 17:20, Johan Hake wrote: > >On Saturday September 4 2010 08:55:42 Anders Logg wrote: > >>On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 08:49:43AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > >>>On Saturday Septemb

Re: [Ffc] [nore...@launchpad.net: [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/main] Rev 1520: See if -O2 flag makes buildbot happy]

On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 08:49:43AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > On Saturday September 4 2010 05:03:04 Anders Logg wrote: > > All of the problems seem to come from the Python tests and demos with > > std::bad_cast. Perhaps something with the SWIG layer? > > Yes I have noitced

Re: [Ffc] [nore...@launchpad.net: [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/main] Rev 1520: See if -O2 flag makes buildbot happy]

ining. > > Garth > > On 04/09/10 11:56, Anders Logg wrote: > >-O2 also makes more sense. > > > >There's a risk -O3 might hit very hard on complex forms. > > -- Anders ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc

[Ffc] [nore...@launchpad.net: [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/main] Rev 1520: See if -O2 flag makes buildbot happy]

-O2 also makes more sense. There's a risk -O3 might hit very hard on complex forms. -- Anders --- Begin Message --- revno: 1520 committer: Garth N. Wells branch nick: ffc timestamp: Sat 2010-09-04 11:46:51 +0100 message: See if -O2 f

[Ffc] JIT speed

Looks like a pretty good speedup for the JIT compiler on the benchbot: http://www.fenics.org/bench/ Nice work Johan! -- Anders signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad

Re: [Ffc] New patch fixing bug in adaptive pydolfin

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 06:26:51PM +0200, Anders Logg wrote: > Applied, thanks. Twice! :-) -- Anders signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : ht

Re: [Ffc] New patch fixing bug in adaptive pydolfin

Applied, thanks. -- Anders On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 08:44:49AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > > # Bazaar merge directive format 2 (Bazaar 0.90) > # revision_id: hake@gmail.com-20100817154120-qj9p39muqn57dabp > # target_branch: bzr+ssh://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ffc-core/ffc/main/ > # testament_sha1

Re: [Ffc] Patch introducing memory cache

Great! It will be interesting to see what the benchbot says tomorrow. -- Anders On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:20:35PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > Hello! > > Attached is a patch that introduce a small memory cache for preprocess forms. > Fixing DOLFIN bug: > >

Re: [Ffc] [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/main] Rev 1498: Added support for CellVolume from UFL.

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 08:03:35PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 08/07/10 19:42, Anders Logg wrote: > >On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 02:36:09PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 08/07/10 13:13, Anders Logg wrote: > >>>On Thu,

Re: [Ffc] [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/main] Rev 1498: Added support for CellVolume from UFL.

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 02:36:09PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 08/07/10 13:13, Anders Logg wrote: > >On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 01:02:43PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 08/07/10 12:59, Anders Logg wrote: > >>>On Thu,

Re: [Ffc] [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/main] Rev 1498: Added support for CellVolume from UFL.

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 01:02:43PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 08/07/10 12:59, Anders Logg wrote: > >On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 12:00:38PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 08/07/10 11:49, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >>>On 8 J

Re: [Ffc] [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/main] Rev 1498: Added support for CellVolume from UFL.

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 12:00:38PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 08/07/10 11:49, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >On 8 July 2010 08:22, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >>On Jul 8 2010, Anders Logg wrote: > >> > >>>On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 10:34:39PM +010

Re: [Ffc] [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/main] Rev 1498: Added support for CellVolume from UFL.

On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 10:34:39PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > On 7 July 2010 20:22, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > > > > On 07/07/10 20:14, Anders Logg wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 06:26:20PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >>>

Re: [Ffc] [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/main] Rev 1498: Added support for CellVolume from UFL.

On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 06:26:20PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > Supporting CellVolume makes it possible to do: > > CG = FiniteElement("Lagrange", triangle, 2) > DG = FiniteElement("DG", triangle, 0) > v = TestFunction(DG) > f = Coefficient(CG) > vol = triangle.v Would it be better to call it

Re: [Ffc] FFC vs. SFC

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 01:04:27PM +0200, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > On 21 June 2010 23:16, Kent Andre wrote: > > > > Strange. I used dorsal to compile the dev versions of the various > > packages. Dolfin, ffc, and sfc are only a few days old. > > > > But do you have any suggestions for how to opt

Re: [Ffc] integral meta-data

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 03:06:28PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 23/05/10 14:59, Anders Logg wrote: > >On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 03:32:51PM +0200, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >>On 23 May 2010 15:08, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >>> > >>>

Re: [Ffc] integral meta-data

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 03:32:51PM +0200, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > On 23 May 2010 15:08, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > > > > On 23/05/10 13:58, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >> > >> On 23 May 2010 12:51, Kristian Oelgaard  wrote: > >>> > >>> On 23 May 2010 12:14, Garth N. Wells  wrote: > >

Re: [Ffc] auto representation

On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 01:29:41PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > The auto representation with FFC seems to be working pretty well, > with the exception of higher-order Lagrange when FErari is > installed. It's unbearably slow. Could this be easily tweaked? > > Garth I don't think so, not without

Re: [Ffc] verbose output

On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 01:28:11PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 03/05/10 13:22, Anders Logg wrote: > >On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 01:09:41PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >>The FFC man pages says: > >> > >>-d, --debug > >> De

Re: [Ffc] verbose output

On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 01:09:41PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > The FFC man pages says: > > -d, --debug > Debug mode, more output is printed. Conflicts with -s. > > The description sounds to me like it should be '-v, --verbose' The > current flag is confusing when we have '-O' for c

Re: [Ffc] evaluate_integrand

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:22:39PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 13/04/10 21:13, Anders Logg wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:06:35PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 13/04/10 21:00, Anders Logg wrote: > >>>On Tue,

Re: [Ffc] evaluate_integrand

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:06:35PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 13/04/10 21:00, Anders Logg wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 08:19:33PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 13/04/10 17:59, Anders Logg wrote: > >>>On Tue,

  1   2   3   4   >