On 5 April 2013 15:31, Marie E. Rognes wrote:
> On 04/05/2013 04:41 AM, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>
>> This change breaks installation of FFC:
>>
>> ffc/ext/time_elements_interface.cpp:23:10: fatal error:
>> 'numpy/arrayobject.h' file not found
>>
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.
>
> We need to discuss at some point the role of dolfin::FiniteElement
> and dolfin::DofMap. I'd like to
On 20 November 2011 19:09, Anders Logg wrote:
> 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
>>
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 function is called from the function
ffc.analysis._auto_select_representation
What I don't get is why it's even being called. Since
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.
>> But before new features are added, we need to make release
>> branche
Do some recent FFC changes now mean that the generated code depends on
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
On 17 October 2011 11:47, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> Very sorry for this, I have pushed a fix to
> lp:~martinal/ffc/bugfix
>
Strange. I ran the tests and they failed, then I cleaned things out
and they passed after which I pushed.
Anyway, fix has been pushed now.
Garth
> Martin
>
>
> On 17
On 12 September 2011 20:36, 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. Rognes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 09/12/11 19:40, Garth N
On 12 September 2011 20:56, 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, Ma
On 12 September 2011 18:49, Marie E. Rognes wrote:
> On 09/12/11 19:40, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>
>> Which compiler options did you use when evaluating the speed up?
>>
>
> Tested Extrapolation.h with vanilla dolfin (which is dominated by
> evaluate_basis calls). No a
Which compiler options did you use when evaluating the speed up?
Garth
On 12 September 2011 18:38, wrote:
> Merge authors:
> Marie Rognes (meg-simula)
>
> revno: 1684 [merge]
> committer: Marie E. Rognes
> branch nick: trunk
> tim
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 often has a lot of zeroes. Would it be
sensible to
1. Initialise A to zer
On 16/05/11 17:01, Marie E. Rognes wrote:
>
>
> On 16. mai 2011, at 16:57, Anders Logg wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 04:42:29PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
>>> On 16 May 2011 16:35, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>&
FFC version 0.9.10 has been released. Below is a summary of changes from
the ChangeLog.
0.9.10 [2011-05-16]
- Change license from GPL v3 or later to LGPL v3 or later
- Add some schemes for low-order simplices
- Request quadrature schemes by polynomial degree (not longer by number
of points i
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:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16. mai 2011, at 12:13, "Garth N. Wells"
>>> wrote:
>&
On 16/05/11 12:49, Marie E. Rognes wrote:
>
>
> On 16. mai 2011, at 12:13, "Garth N. Wells" wrote:
>
>> I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of UFL,
>> FFC and DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements to UFL,
>> FFC cachi
I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of UFL, FFC and
DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements to UFL, FFC caching,
and there have been a good number of DOLFIN bugs fixes. New version
numbers would be:
UFL: 0.9.1
FFC: 0.9.1
DOLFIN: 0.9.12
Jump in quick if there is anyth
4:24AM -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:
>> > > &g
On 26/04/11 17:03, Anders Logg wrote:
> 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 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, 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 26/04/11 16:39, 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 T
. 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, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>>> On
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 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 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 e
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
On 26/04/11 12:22, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> On 26 April 2011 10:56, Garth N. Wells <mailto:gn...@cam.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 26/04/11 09:03, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> > See other mail. I don't see that it solves anything, it doesn't se
On 26/04/11 12:25, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> On 26 April 2011 11:09, Garth N. Wells <mailto:gn...@cam.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 26/04/11 09:56, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 26/04/11 09:03, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
&g
On 26/04/11 09:56, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
>
> On 26/04/11 09:03, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
>> See other mail. I don't see that it solves anything, it doesn't seem
>> related to anything I've read about in this thread, and it has a
>> potential back
original_arguments = [inv_replace_map[v] for v in arguments]
return original_arguments
Garth
> Martin
>
> On 26 April 2011 09:20, Garth N. Wells <mailto:gn...@cam.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
> Martin: Any problem if we apply this patch to UFL?
>
>
On 25/04/11 23:14, 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 10:41:58PM +0100, Garth N. Wells
On 25/04/11 23:19, 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, 2011 at 10:56:25PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>>> On 25/04/11 22:48, Anders Logg wrote:
On 25/04/11 23:16, Anders Logg wrote:
> 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 23:04, Johan Hake wrote:
> On Monday April 25 2011 14:53:22 Johan Hake wrote:
>> On Monday April 25 2011 14:44:23 Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>> On 25/04/11 22:29, Johan Hake wrote:
>>>> I am working on a simple solution, where we store everything
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, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:41:58PM +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, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:26:18PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>&
. ) after being preprocessed.
Garth
> Johan
>
> On Monday April 25 2011 14:26:18 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 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 Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 07:40:21PM -, Garth Wells wrote:
>>>> On 25/04/11 20:00, Johan Hake wro
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 25/04/11 18:51, Anders Logg wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 05:11:41PM -, Garth Wel
Nice.
I see that -O for the hyperelastic demo requires a *lot* of memory, and
the form isn't really that complicated (the basis in linear).
Any idea which term in the form is most taxing on the optimisations?
Garth
On 19/04/11 14:06, nore...@launchpad.net wrote:
> --
Buildbot failures are due to the bug
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ufl/+bug/747524
Garth
On 01/04/11 18:04, build...@fenics.org wrote:
> The Buildbot has detected a new failure of ffc-lucid-amd64 on FEniCS Buildbot.
> Full details are available at:
> http://fenicsproject.org:8080/builders/ffc-
On 09/03/11 09:19, Kristian Ølgaard wrote:
> On 9 March 2011 08:36, Anders Logg wrote:
>> 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.
>>>
>>> T
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?
Garth
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@
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 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_ca
Seems to be something wrong with the buildbot - I can't see why it's
complaining.
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:/
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 09:10 +0200, Anders Logg wrote:
> Great!
>
> It will be interesting to see what the benchbot says tomorrow.
>
The change broke
demo/adaptivity/adaptive-poisson/python
Garth
> --
> Anders
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:20:35PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> > Hello!
>
On Mon, 2010-08-02 at 14:08 +0200, Florian Rathgeber wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 23.07.2010 20:33, Kristian Ølgaard wrote:
> > On 23 July 2010 13:30, Florian Rathgeber
> > wrote:
> > On 23.07.2010 14:22, Kristian Ølgaard wrote:
> On 23 July 2010 13:02, Flo
On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 13:40 +0200, Florian Rathgeber wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> Profiling DOLFIN assembly shows that for forms with many coefficients or
> computationally expensive expressions assigned to coefficients, a great
> deal of the whole assembly
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, 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
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, 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
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 July 2010 08:22, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On Jul 8 2010, Anders Logg wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 10:34:39PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard
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 +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
On 08/07/10 09:02, Mehdi Nikbakht wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 08:50 +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 08/07/10 08:33, Mehdi Nikbakht wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 08:22 +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On Jul 8 2010, Anders Logg wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 10:34:39PM +0100, Kristian
On 08/07/10 08:33, Mehdi Nikbakht wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 08:22 +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On Jul 8 2010, Anders Logg wrote:
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
On Jul 8 2010, Anders Logg wrote:
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:
>>
On 07/07/10 20:14, Anders Logg wrote:
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
On 22/06/10 07:05, Andy Ray Terrel wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Anders Logg wrote:
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
On 21/06/10 17:29, 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 optimize the FFC generated
code ? I have
On 16/06/10 15:55, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 16 June 2010 16:45, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 16/06/10 15:20, Marie Rognes wrote:
On 16. juni 2010 15:51, Mehdi wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 14:03 +0200, Marie Rognes wrote:
On 16. juni 2010 13:41, Mehdi wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 15
On 16/06/10 15:20, Marie Rognes wrote:
On 16. juni 2010 15:51, Mehdi wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 14:03 +0200, Marie Rognes wrote:
On 16. juni 2010 13:41, Mehdi wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 15:35 +0200, Marie Rognes wrote:
Original Message
Su
This was meant for the FFC list.
Garth
On 07/06/10 11:50, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 04/06/10 14:12, nore...@launchpad.net wrote:
revno: 1480
committer: Marie E. Rognes
branch nick: ffc
timestamp: Fri 2010-06-04 15:10:26 +0200
Looks like the arity checks in UFL are broken. The code comments
indicate that it hasn't been well tested.
Garth
On 04/06/10 21:24, Garth N. Wells wrote:
Has someone made a recent change to UFL? All of a sudden I'm getting the
below.
Garth
File
"/usr/local/lib/python2.6/di
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:
On 23/05/10 13:58, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 23 May 2010 12:51, Kristian Oelgaardwrote:
On 23 May 2010 12:14, Garth N. Wells
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:
Where are we at with attaching data to integrals? The quadrature order can
be attached, but I's like to do:
dS({"representation": &quo
Where are we at with attaching data to integrals? The quadrature order
can be attached, but I's like to do:
dS({"representation": "tensor"})
Is this supported by FFC?
Garth
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.lau
On 18/05/10 09:32, Johannes Ring wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On May 18 2010, Johannes Ring wrote:
Hi,
See this bug report:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=581897
Does FFC require DOLFIN?
Only when using the '-l dolfin'
On May 18 2010, Johannes Ring wrote:
Hi,
See this bug report:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=581897
Does FFC require DOLFIN?
Only when using the '-l dolfin' flag.
We should add a more informative error message.
Garth
Is it only dolfin_utils that is required? If
so,
On 03/05/10 13:43, Anders Logg wrote:
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 tw
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
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to
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
Debug mode, more output is printed. Conflicts with -s.
The description sounds to me like it should be '-v, --verbose' The
curre
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 code optimisation.
Garth
___
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, Apr 13, 2010 at 08:19:33PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 13/04/10 17:59, Anders Logg wrote:
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:31:38AM +0200
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, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:31:38AM +0200, Mehdi Nikbakht wrote:
On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 10:43 +0200, Anders Logg wrote:
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:31
On 12/04/10 20:47, Anders Logg wrote:
We are doing some work where we need to do run-time quadrature over
arbitrary polyhedra. For this reason, we would like to generate code
for evaluating the integrand of a form at an arbitrary point within
the cell.
I would propose adding something like thi
, 2010 at 07:17:28AM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 12/04/10 23:35, Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:20:13PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 12/04/10 21:49, Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 09:34:38PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 12/04/10 21:29, Anders Logg wrote
On 13/04/10 15:45, Anders Logg wrote:
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 07:17:28AM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 12/04/10 23:35, Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:20:13PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 12/04/10 21:49, Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 09:34:38PM +0800
On 13/04/10 00:16, Andre Massing wrote:
Hi!
Anders and I are working on an implementation for Nitsche's method, where the
question of integration on cut cell and facets also (beside XFEM for you) came
up.
On Monday 12. April 2010 16.20.13 Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 12/04/10 21:49, Anders
On 12/04/10 23:35, Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:20:13PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 12/04/10 21:49, Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 09:34:38PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 12/04/10 21:29, Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 09:21:32PM +0800
On 12/04/10 21:49, Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 09:34:38PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 12/04/10 21:29, Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 09:21:32PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 12/04/10 21:19, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 12/04/10 20:47, Anders Logg wrote
On 12/04/10 21:29, Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 09:21:32PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 12/04/10 21:19, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 12/04/10 20:47, Anders Logg wrote:
We are doing some work where we need to do run-time quadrature over
arbitrary polyhedra.
We (Mehdi and I
On 12/04/10 21:19, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 12/04/10 20:47, Anders Logg wrote:
We are doing some work where we need to do run-time quadrature over
arbitrary polyhedra.
We (Mehdi and I) do this already (using UFC), so I don't see why a new
function is required. Can you explai
On 12/04/10 20:47, Anders Logg wrote:
We are doing some work where we need to do run-time quadrature over
arbitrary polyhedra.
We (Mehdi and I) do this already (using UFC), so I don't see why a new
function is required. Can you explain why evaluate_tensor is not enough?
Garth
For this re
On 22/03/10 16:42, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 21 March 2010 21:32, Anders Logg wrote:
After Marie's latest addition of enriched spaces (and some discussion
with Doug Arnold), it seems clear that our current notation V + W for
mixed spaces is not optimal.
Even though one may think of the o
nore...@launchpad.net wrote:
>
> revno: 1443
> committer: Kristian B. Ølgaard
> branch nick: ffc
> timestamp: Thu 2010-03-11 14:59:32 +0100
> message:
> Implement two new optimisation strategies for quadrature representation.
Nice.
Marie Rognes wrote:
> Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>
>>
>> nore...@launchpad.net wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> revno: 1438
>>> committer: Marie E. Rognes
>>> branch nick: ffc
>&g
nore...@launchpad.net wrote:
>
> revno: 1438
> committer: Marie E. Rognes
> branch nick: ffc
> timestamp: Sun 2010-03-07 19:15:05 +0100
> message:
> Added support for Bubble elements, using ElementRestriction of a
> Lagrang
Anders Logg wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:34:58PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>> Should me move the FFC regression tests into a separate repository? When
>> they change frequently, it starts to blow out the size of ffc code
>> repositopry.
>>
>> Garth
&g
Should me move the FFC regression tests into a separate repository? When
they change frequently, it starts to blow out the size of ffc code
repositopry.
Garth
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe
Anders Logg wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 01:49:38PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>
>> Anders Logg wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:19:53AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>>> I've run into a tensor contraction bug. The jit log contains:
&g
Anders Logg wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:19:53AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>> I've run into a tensor contraction bug. The jit log contains:
>>
>> In member function ‘virtual void
>> form_96980ae3ebe60648ee99493c681869c0377c12ac_exterior_facet_inte
Anders Logg wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:19:53AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>> I've run into a tensor contraction bug. The jit log contains:
>>
>> In member function ‘virtual void
>> form_96980ae3ebe60648ee99493c681869c0377c12ac_exterior_facet_inte
I've run into a tensor contraction bug. The jit log contains:
In member function ‘virtual void
form_96980ae3ebe60648ee99493c681869c0377c12ac_exterior_facet_integral_0_0::tabulate_tensor(double*,
const double* const*, const ufc::cell&, unsigned int) const’:
form_96980ae3ebe60648ee99493c681869c0377
Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
>
> On 16 February 2010 13:26, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>
>>
>> Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>>
>>> Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>>> This change broke my solver :(.
>>>>
>>
>> I managed to fix the
Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
> Garth N. Wells wrote:
>> This change broke my solver :(.
>>
I managed to fix the first bug, but now with optimisation on I get:
File
"/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ffc/quadrature/quadraturegenerator.py",
line 210,
Garth N. Wells wrote:
> This change broke my solver :(.
>
> Hard to say what it is because I just get the Python/SWIG error
>
Here's how to reproduce the error:
ffc -l dolfin -O -r quadrature --debug MixedPoisson.ufl
Is this not in the test cases?
Garth
>
> E
This change broke my solver :(.
Hard to say what it is because I just get the Python/SWIG error
Exception: Swig director method error. Error detected when calling
'NonlinearProblem.J'
Garth
Original Message
Subject: [Branch ~ffc-core/ffc/main] Rev 1423: merge
Date: Mon, 15
Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
>
>
> On 10 February 2010 02:15, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>> FFC now depends on ferari,
>>
>> File
>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ffc/tensor/tensoroptimization.py",
>>
>> line 17, in optimize_integra
FFC now depends on ferari,
File
"/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ffc/tensor/tensoroptimization.py",
line 17, in optimize_integral_ir
from ferari import binary
ImportError: No module named ferari
I don't think that it should.
Garth
___
Mail
I've attached a simple script that solves a problem, and refines the
mesh every few steps. The RHS uses data from the previous step. The
extract
for t in xrange(3):
for level in xrange(2):
mesh = mesh_new
V = FunctionSpace(mesh, "CG", 1)
v = TestFunction(V)
dU
'self.form_data'
Garth
> --
> Anders
>
> o
> On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 10:09:10PM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>> There is a problem when running the DOLFIN demos:
>>
>> File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ffc/jitcompiler.py", line
>
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
