Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

I have added a sketch of RestrictedElement but there is some weird nesting of mixed and restricted elements that I couldn't figure out a nice way to handle. Try the ElementRestriction.ufl demo and see what happens. -- Anders signature.asc Description: Digital signature __

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

Kristian Oelgaard wrote: On 28 January 2010 22:12, Garth N. Wells wrote: Kristian Oelgaard wrote: On 28 January 2010 21:16, Garth N. Wells wrote: Anders Logg wrote: On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 07:51:52PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: On 28 January 2010 19:18, Anders Logg wrote: Up

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

On 28 January 2010 22:12, Garth N. Wells wrote: Kristian Oelgaard wrote: On 28 January 2010 21:16, Garth N. Wells wrote: Anders Logg wrote: On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 07:51:52PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: On 28 January 2010 19:18, Anders Logg wrote: Update:  ElementRestriction

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:03:57PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > > > On 28 January 2010 21:59, Anders Logg wrote: > >On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 09:56:18PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 28 January 2010 21:14, Marie Rognes wrote: > >>>Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > > > >>>

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > > > On 28 January 2010 21:16, Garth N. Wells wrote: >> >> >> Anders Logg wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 07:51:52PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: On 28 January 2010 19:18, Anders Logg wrote: > Update: > > ElementRestriction.ufl Could

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

Anders Logg wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 08:28:22PM +, Garth N. Wells wrote: >> >> Anders Logg wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 09:14:36PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > 2010/1/27 Medhi Nikbakht : >> On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:50 +0100, Marie Rognes wro

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

On 28 January 2010 21:59, Anders Logg wrote: On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 09:56:18PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: On 28 January 2010 21:14, Marie Rognes wrote: >Kristian Oelgaard wrote: >> >> >>2010/1/27 Medhi Nikbakht : >>> >>>On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:50 +0100, Marie Rognes wrote:

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 09:56:18PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > > > On 28 January 2010 21:14, Marie Rognes wrote: > >Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >> > >> > >>2010/1/27 Medhi Nikbakht : > >>> > >>>On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:50 +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > > FFC compilation fails for > >>>

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

On 28 January 2010 21:16, Garth N. Wells wrote: Anders Logg wrote: On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 07:51:52PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: On 28 January 2010 19:18, Anders Logg wrote: Update:  ElementRestriction.ufl Could you have a look at and comment on the discussion about element rest

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

On 28 January 2010 21:14, Marie Rognes wrote: Kristian Oelgaard wrote: 2010/1/27 Medhi Nikbakht : On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:50 +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: FFC compilation fails for    ElementRestriction.ufl The error message says that "ElementRestriction" is not supported by FIAT. How

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

Garth N. Wells wrote: Anders Logg wrote: On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 09:14:36PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: Kristian Oelgaard wrote: 2010/1/27 Medhi Nikbakht : On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:50 +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: FFC compilation fails for ElementRestrictio

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 08:28:22PM +, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > Anders Logg wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 09:14:36PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > >> Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >>> > >>> 2010/1/27 Medhi Nikbakht : > On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:50 +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > > FFC c

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

Anders Logg wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 09:14:36PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: >> Kristian Oelgaard wrote: >>> >>> 2010/1/27 Medhi Nikbakht : On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:50 +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > FFC compilation fails for > >ElementRestriction.ufl The error messag

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 09:14:36PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > > > > > >2010/1/27 Medhi Nikbakht : > >>On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:50 +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > >>> > >>>FFC compilation fails for > >>> > >>>ElementRestriction.ufl > >> > >>The error message says that "

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

On 28 January 2010 21:04, Anders Logg wrote: On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 07:51:52PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: On 28 January 2010 19:18, Anders Logg wrote: >Update: > > ElementRestriction.ufl Could you have a look at and comment on the discussion about element restrictions? It was poste

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

Anders Logg wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 07:51:52PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: >> >> On 28 January 2010 19:18, Anders Logg wrote: >>> Update: >>> >>> ElementRestriction.ufl >> Could you have a look at and comment on the discussion about element >> restrictions? It was posted a couple

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

Kristian Oelgaard wrote: 2010/1/27 Medhi Nikbakht : On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:50 +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: FFC compilation fails for ElementRestriction.ufl The error message says that "ElementRestriction" is not supported by FIAT. How will the restricted elements be implemented? Would

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 07:51:52PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > > > On 28 January 2010 19:18, Anders Logg wrote: > >Update: > > > > ElementRestriction.ufl > > Could you have a look at and comment on the discussion about element > restrictions? It was posted a couple of days ago on the list.

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

On 28 January 2010 20:31, Anders Logg wrote: On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 07:51:52PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: On 28 January 2010 19:18, Anders Logg wrote: >Update: > > ElementRestriction.ufl Could you have a look at and comment on the discussion about element restrictions? It was posted

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 07:51:52PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > > > On 28 January 2010 19:18, Anders Logg wrote: > >Update: > > > > ElementRestriction.ufl > > Could you have a look at and comment on the discussion about element > restrictions? It was posted a couple of days ago on the list. I

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

On 28 January 2010 19:18, Anders Logg wrote: Update:  ElementRestriction.ufl Could you have a look at and comment on the discussion about element restrictions? It was posted a couple of days ago on the list. It would be nice to get right the first time. Kristian  QuadratureElement.ufl

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

Update: ElementRestriction.ufl QuadratureElement.ufl evaluate_basis_derivatives* 1510 Everything else seems to be ok. There's one tabulate_tensor reported in error.log but it's the result of different handling of integrals on sub domains. So things are looking good! -- Anders signature.

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

On 28 January 2010 12:12, Anders Logg wrote: New update:  evaluate_basis_derivatives* 1517  evaluate_basis                 4  value_dimension                2  num_coefficients               1  tabulate_tensor                1 Looks good! It shouldn't be the any problem to fix the last few e

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

New update: evaluate_basis_derivatives* 1517 evaluate_basis 4 value_dimension2 num_coefficients 1 tabulate_tensor1 Looks good! It shouldn't be the any problem to fix the last few errors, but what about evaluate_basis_derivati

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

Anders Logg wrote: On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 08:48:10PM +0100, Anders Logg wrote: Update: FFC compilation fails for ElementRestriction.ufl QuadratureElement.ufl GCC compilation works for all forms Running test programs fails for P5tet.bin Output test fails for all forms evaluate_

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 08:48:10PM +0100, Anders Logg wrote: > Update: > > FFC compilation fails for > > ElementRestriction.ufl > QuadratureElement.ufl > > GCC compilation works for all forms > > Running test programs fails for > > P5tet.bin > > Output test fails for all forms > > evaluate_

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

Update: FFC compilation fails for ElementRestriction.ufl QuadratureElement.ufl GCC compilation works for all forms Running test programs fails for P5tet.bin Output test fails for all forms evaluate_basis_* 3048 errors tabulate_tensor 34 errors interpolate_ver

Re: [Ffc] Status update

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 01:42:52PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > Anders Logg wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:46:47PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > >>Anders Logg wrote: > >>>On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:16:06PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > Let me know if I should do anything else than adding un

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 16:54 +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > > 2010/1/27 Medhi Nikbakht : > > On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:50 +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > >> > >> FFC compilation fails for > >> > >> ElementRestriction.ufl > > > > The error message says that "ElementRestriction" is not supported b

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

2010/1/27 Medhi Nikbakht : On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:50 +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: FFC compilation fails for     ElementRestriction.ufl The error message says that "ElementRestriction" is not supported by FIAT. How will the restricted elements be implemented? Wouldn't it be better to suppor

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

Medhi Nikbakht wrote: On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:50 +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: FFC compilation fails for ElementRestriction.ufl The error message says that "ElementRestriction" is not supported by FIAT. How will the restricted elements be implemented? Wouldn't it be better to supp

Re: [Ffc] Status (again)

On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:50 +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > > FFC compilation fails for > > ElementRestriction.ufl The error message says that "ElementRestriction" is not supported by FIAT. How will the restricted elements be implemented? Wouldn't it be better to support them inside FFC? Mehd

[Ffc] Status (again)

FFC compilation fails for ElementRestriction.ufl QuadratureElement.ufl TensorWeightedPoisson.ufl Running test programs fails for P5tet.bin(Segmentation faults after evaluate_basis(0, ...) Differences in output evaluate_basis* FacetIntegrals.out (missing value in

Re: [Ffc] Status update

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 01:42:52PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > Anders Logg wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:46:47PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > >>Anders Logg wrote: > >>>On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:16:06PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > Let me know if I should do anything else than adding un

Re: [Ffc] Status update

Anders Logg wrote: On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:46:47PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: Anders Logg wrote: On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:16:06PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: Let me know if I should do anything else than adding unit tests for RT/BDM/NED. (Aaargh, btw). I hope to ad

Re: [Ffc] Status update

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:37:12PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > 2010/1/25 Anders Logg : > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 07:14:20PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > > > >> 2010/1/25 Anders Logg : > >> >It's starting to look better. The following 8 tests are currently failing: > >> > > >> >Generati

Re: [Ffc] Status update

2010/1/25 Anders Logg : > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 07:14:20PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >> 2010/1/25 Anders Logg : >> >It's starting to look better. The following 8 tests are currently failing: >> > >> >Generating code >> >--- >> > >> >1. ElementRestriction.ufl failed >> > >> >**

Re: [Ffc] Status update

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:46:47PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > Anders Logg wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:16:06PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > >>Let me know if I should do anything else than adding unit tests for > >>RT/BDM/NED. > >>(Aaargh, btw). > > > >I hope to add more a selection of ele

Re: [Ffc] Status update

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:46:47PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > Anders Logg wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:16:06PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > >>Let me know if I should do anything else than adding unit tests for > >>RT/BDM/NED. > >>(Aaargh, btw). > > > >I hope to add more a selection of ele

Re: [Ffc] Status update

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:46:47PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > Anders Logg wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:16:06PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > >>Let me know if I should do anything else than adding unit tests for > >>RT/BDM/NED. > >>(Aaargh, btw). > > > >I hope to add more a selection of ele

Re: [Ffc] Status update

Anders Logg wrote: On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:16:06PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: Let me know if I should do anything else than adding unit tests for RT/BDM/NED. (Aaargh, btw). I hope to add more a selection of elements to the regression tests later. Then you can feel very free to help

Re: [Ffc] Status update

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:16:06PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > > Let me know if I should do anything else than adding unit tests for > RT/BDM/NED. > (Aaargh, btw). I hope to add more a selection of elements to the regression tests later. Then you can feel very free to help with the debugging. :-)

Re: [Ffc] Status update

Let me know if I should do anything else than adding unit tests for RT/BDM/NED. (Aaargh, btw). Is the jit compilation working? -- Marie Anders Logg wrote: It's starting to look better. The following 8 tests are currently failing: Generating code --- 1. ElementRestriction.ufl f

Re: [Ffc] Status update

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 07:14:20PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > 2010/1/25 Anders Logg : > >It's starting to look better. The following 8 tests are currently failing: > > > >Generating code > >--- > > > >1. ElementRestriction.ufl failed > > > >*** FFC: Sorry, finite element of type

Re: [Ffc] Status update

2010/1/25 Anders Logg : It's starting to look better. The following 8 tests are currently failing: Generating code --- 1. ElementRestriction.ufl failed *** FFC: Sorry, finite element of type "ElementRestriction" are not supported by FIAT. I assume Kristian knows what to do. Ye

[Ffc] Status update

It's starting to look better. The following 8 tests are currently failing: Generating code --- 1. ElementRestriction.ufl failed *** FFC: Sorry, finite element of type "ElementRestriction" are not supported by FIAT. I assume Kristian knows what to do. 2. QuadratureElement.ufl failed

Re: [Ffc] Status update

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:53:19PM +, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > Anders Logg wrote: > > Don't know. Do you have a good test example? > > demo/pde/poisson/cpp > > ;). Thats's a good example. And yes it works. :-) -- Anders signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___

Re: [Ffc] Status update

Anders Logg wrote: > Don't know. Do you have a good test example? demo/pde/poisson/cpp ;). Garth > > -- > Anders > > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:50:40PM +, Garth N. Wells wrote: >> Are named variables working in the DOLFIN wrapper code for ffc-dev? I >> fixed this recently in ffc-main

Re: [Ffc] Status update

Don't know. Do you have a good test example? -- Anders On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:50:40PM +, Garth N. Wells wrote: > Are named variables working in the DOLFIN wrapper code for ffc-dev? I > fixed this recently in ffc-main. > > Garth > > Anders Logg wrote: > > The regression test script is sta

Re: [Ffc] Status update

Are named variables working in the DOLFIN wrapper code for ffc-dev? I fixed this recently in ffc-main. Garth Anders Logg wrote: > The regression test script is starting to shape up. There's still some > work to do but one can run it to generate code, check code against > stored references and bui

[Ffc] Status update

The regression test script is starting to shape up. There's still some work to do but one can run it to generate code, check code against stored references and build test programs against the generated code. Just enter test/regression and run python test.py. Errors are logged to error.log. Here a

Re: [Ffc] Status

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 08:09:25PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > Anders Logg wrote: > >On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 07:00:54PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > >>Anders Logg wrote: > >>>We've come pretty far on the rewrite of FFC and only a few functions > >>>remain. As far as I can see, it remains to implem

Re: [Ffc] Status

2010/1/12 Anders Logg : On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 08:32:13PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: 2010/1/12 Marie Rognes : >Kristian Oelgaard wrote: >> >> >>2010/1/12 Marie Rognes : >>> >>>Anders Logg wrote: We've come pretty far on the rewrite of FFC and only a few functions remain. A

Re: [Ffc] Status

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 08:32:13PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > > > 2010/1/12 Marie Rognes : > >Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >> > >> > >>2010/1/12 Marie Rognes : > >>> > >>>Anders Logg wrote: > > We've come pretty far on the rewrite of FFC and only a few functions > remain. As far a

Re: [Ffc] Status

2010/1/12 Marie Rognes : Kristian Oelgaard wrote: 2010/1/12 Marie Rognes : Anders Logg wrote: We've come pretty far on the rewrite of FFC and only a few functions remain. As far as I can see, it remains to implement code generation for the following functions: Kristian:  code["evaluate

Re: [Ffc] Status

Kristian Oelgaard wrote: 2010/1/12 Marie Rognes : Anders Logg wrote: We've come pretty far on the rewrite of FFC and only a few functions remain. As far as I can see, it remains to implement code generation for the following functions: Kristian: code["evaluate_basis_all"] = not_implemente

Re: [Ffc] Status

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 07:00:54PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > Anders Logg wrote: > >We've come pretty far on the rewrite of FFC and only a few functions > >remain. As far as I can see, it remains to implement code generation > >for the following functions: > > > >Kristian: > > > > code["evaluate

Re: [Ffc] Status

2010/1/12 Marie Rognes : Anders Logg wrote: We've come pretty far on the rewrite of FFC and only a few functions remain. As far as I can see, it remains to implement code generation for the following functions: Kristian:  code["evaluate_basis_all"] = not_implemented  code["evaluate_basis_de

Re: [Ffc] Status

Anders Logg wrote: We've come pretty far on the rewrite of FFC and only a few functions remain. As far as I can see, it remains to implement code generation for the following functions: Kristian: code["evaluate_basis_all"] = not_implemented code["evaluate_basis_derivatives"] = not_implement

Re: [Ffc] Status

On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 03:04:35PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > Anders Logg wrote: > >On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 04:25:30PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > >>Anders Logg wrote: > >>>We've come pretty far on the rewrite of FFC and only a few functions > >>>remain. As far as I can see, it remains to implem

Re: [Ffc] Status

Anders Logg wrote: On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 04:25:30PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: Anders Logg wrote: We've come pretty far on the rewrite of FFC and only a few functions remain. As far as I can see, it remains to implement code generation for the following functions: Kristian: code["e

Re: [Ffc] Status

On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 04:25:30PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote: > Anders Logg wrote: > >We've come pretty far on the rewrite of FFC and only a few functions > >remain. As far as I can see, it remains to implement code generation > >for the following functions: > > > >Kristian: > > > > code["evaluate

Re: [Ffc] Status

Marie Rognes wrote: > Anders Logg wrote: >> We've come pretty far on the rewrite of FFC and only a few functions >> remain. As far as I can see, it remains to implement code generation >> for the following functions: >> >> Kristian: >> >> code["evaluate_basis_all"] = not_implemented >> code["

Re: [Ffc] Status

Kristian Oelgaard wrote: 2010/1/6 Anders Logg : On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 11:24:04AM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: 2010/1/6 Anders Logg : >We've come pretty far on the rewrite of FFC and only a few functions >remain. As far as I can see, it remains to implement code generation >for the foll

Re: [Ffc] Status

Anders Logg wrote: We've come pretty far on the rewrite of FFC and only a few functions remain. As far as I can see, it remains to implement code generation for the following functions: Kristian: code["evaluate_basis_all"] = not_implemented code["evaluate_basis_derivatives"] = not_implement

Re: [Ffc] Status

2010/1/6 Anders Logg : On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 11:24:04AM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: 2010/1/6 Anders Logg : >We've come pretty far on the rewrite of FFC and only a few functions >remain. As far as I can see, it remains to implement code generation >for the following functions: > >Kristi

Re: [Ffc] Status

On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 11:24:04AM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > > > 2010/1/6 Anders Logg : > >We've come pretty far on the rewrite of FFC and only a few functions > >remain. As far as I can see, it remains to implement code generation > >for the following functions: > > > >Kristian: > > > > co

Re: [Ffc] Status

2010/1/6 Anders Logg : We've come pretty far on the rewrite of FFC and only a few functions remain. As far as I can see, it remains to implement code generation for the following functions: Kristian:  code["evaluate_basis_all"] = not_implemented This should be easy to implement. Would it be

[Ffc] Status

We've come pretty far on the rewrite of FFC and only a few functions remain. As far as I can see, it remains to implement code generation for the following functions: Kristian: code["evaluate_basis_all"] = not_implemented code["evaluate_basis_derivatives"] = not_implemented code["evaluate_b