On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:26:32AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
>
> Anders Logg wrote:
> > There seem to be just a couple of issues remaining in order of importance:
> >
> > 1. QuadratureElement
> >
> > 2. DOLFIN fem unit test
> >
> > 3. evaluate_basis_derivatives
> >
> > 4. RestrictedElement
> >
Anders Logg wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:26:32AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>
>> Anders Logg wrote:
>>> There seem to be just a couple of issues remaining in order of importance:
>>>
>>> 1. QuadratureElement
>>>
>>> 2. DOLFIN fem unit test
>>>
>>> 3. evaluate_basis_derivatives
>>>
>>> 4
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 08:35:23AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
>
> Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:26:32AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >>
> >> Anders Logg wrote:
> >>> There seem to be just a couple of issues remaining in order of importance:
> >>>
> >>> 1. QuadratureElement
Anders Logg wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 08:35:23AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>
>> Anders Logg wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:26:32AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
Anders Logg wrote:
> There seem to be just a couple of issues remaining in order of importance:
>
> 1.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 09:31:54AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
>
> Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 08:35:23AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >>
> >> Anders Logg wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:26:32AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> Anders Logg wrote:
> > There see
Anders Logg wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 09:31:54AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>
>> Anders Logg wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 08:35:23AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
Anders Logg wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:26:32AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>> Anders Logg wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:10:37AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > Sub domains seem to be very different, but the other two cases just
> > seem to be a matter of some dofs being "active" and the other zeroed
> > out. This is what Marie suggested yesterday, that a restricted element
> > only consi
Anders Logg wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:10:37AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
>>> Sub domains seem to be very different, but the other two cases just
>>> seem to be a matter of some dofs being "active" and the other zeroed
>>> out. This is what Marie suggested yesterday, that a restrict
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 10:57 +0100, Anders Logg wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 09:31:54AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >
> >
> > Anders Logg wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 08:35:23AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Anders Logg wrote:
> > >>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:26:32AM +0
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:31:05AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
>
> Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:10:37AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >
> >>> Sub domains seem to be very different, but the other two cases just
> >>> seem to be a matter of some dofs being "active" and the ot
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:38:38AM +0100, Mehdi Nikbakht wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 10:57 +0100, Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 09:31:54AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Anders Logg wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 08:35:23AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
Anders Logg wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:31:05AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>
>> Anders Logg wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:10:37AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>>
> Sub domains seem to be very different, but the other two cases just
> seem to be a matter of some dofs be
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:54:54AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
>
> Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:31:05AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >>
> >> Anders Logg wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:10:37AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >>>
> > Sub domains seem to be very d
Anders Logg wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:54:54AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>
>> Anders Logg wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:31:05AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
Anders Logg wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:10:37AM +, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
>>> Sub domains
On 29 January 2010 01:23, Anders Logg wrote:
There seem to be just a couple of issues remaining in order of importance:
1. QuadratureElement
2. DOLFIN fem unit test
3. evaluate_basis_derivatives
4. RestrictedElement
Among these, I would say 1-2 are crucial to fix before 0.9.0,
but 3-4 are
Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 29 January 2010 01:23, Anders Logg wrote:
There seem to be just a couple of issues remaining in order of
importance:
1. QuadratureElement
2. DOLFIN fem unit test
3. evaluate_basis_derivatives
4. RestrictedElement
Among these, I would say 1-2 are crucial to fi
On 29 January 2010 13:11, Marie Rognes wrote:
Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 29 January 2010 01:23, Anders Logg wrote:
There seem to be just a couple of issues remaining in order of
importance:
1. QuadratureElement
2. DOLFIN fem unit test
3. evaluate_basis_derivatives
4. RestrictedEleme
I think it is almost there, but we need to rethink the way we manipulate the
degrees of finite elements and forms, I think we have discussed this before but
I don't recall if we ever reached a conclusion.
Try running the QuadratureElement.ufl demo.
Kristian
On 29 January 2010 16:04, wrote:
Marie Rognes wrote:
Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 29 January 2010 01:23, Anders Logg wrote:
There seem to be just a couple of issues remaining in order of
importance:
1. QuadratureElement
2. DOLFIN fem unit test
3. evaluate_basis_derivatives
4. RestrictedElement
Among these, I would say
On 29 January 2010 16:55, Marie Rognes wrote:
Marie Rognes wrote:
Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 29 January 2010 01:23, Anders Logg wrote:
There seem to be just a couple of issues remaining in order of
importance:
1. QuadratureElement
2. DOLFIN fem unit test
3. evaluate_basis_derivativ
Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 29 January 2010 16:55, Marie Rognes wrote:
Marie Rognes wrote:
Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 29 January 2010 01:23, Anders Logg wrote:
There seem to be just a couple of issues remaining in order of
importance:
1. QuadratureElement
2. DOLFIN fem unit test
3
It keeps getting better. Here are the current tests that fail.
Generating code (33 form files found)
-
ElementRestriction.ufl failed
QuadratureElement.ufl
Validating generated programs (31 programs found)
-
On 29 January 2010 18:46, Marie Rognes wrote:
Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 29 January 2010 16:55, Marie Rognes wrote:
Marie Rognes wrote:
Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 29 January 2010 01:23, Anders Logg wrote:
There seem to be just a couple of issues remaining in order of
importance
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
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 04:13:13PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
> I think it is almost there, but we need to rethink the way we
> manipulate the degrees of finite elements and forms, I think we have
> discussed this before but I don't recall if we ever reached a
> conclusion. Try running the Qu
On 29 January 2010 20:21, Anders Logg wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 04:13:13PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
I think it is almost there, but we need to rethink the way we
manipulate the degrees of finite elements and forms, I think we have
discussed this before but I don't recall if we eve
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 09:08:44PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
>
>
> On 29 January 2010 20:21, Anders Logg wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 04:13:13PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
> >>I think it is almost there, but we need to rethink the way we
> >>manipulate the degrees of finite element
On 29 January 2010 21:12, Anders Logg wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 09:08:44PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 29 January 2010 20:21, Anders Logg wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 04:13:13PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
>>I think it is almost there, but we need to rethink the way we
>
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 09:22:51PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
>
>
> On 29 January 2010 21:12, Anders Logg wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 09:08:44PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On 29 January 2010 20:21, Anders Logg wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 04:13:13PM +0100, Kri
I've tracked down the error in the DOLFIN fem unit test to the
following simple test:
from dolfin import *
mesh = UnitSquare(1, 1)
V = FunctionSpace(mesh, "DG", 1)
v = TestFunction(V)
u = TrialFunction(V)
h = CellSize(mesh)
a = (1/h)*v*u*ds
A = assemble(a)
info(A, True)
With
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 f
Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 29 January 2010 18:46, Marie Rognes wrote:
Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 29 January 2010 16:55, Marie Rognes wrote:
Marie Rognes wrote:
Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 29 January 2010 01:23, Anders Logg wrote:
There seem to be just a couple of issues remain
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)
>---
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
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
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
36 matches
Mail list logo
