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 functio
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.
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 L
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 ---
---
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 th
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 c
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 catc
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 gre
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 lon
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
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 t
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. :)
> >
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
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
Blameli
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: A
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:
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 t
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
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:
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
