On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:29:14PM +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > 2008/12/3 Anders Logg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 03:18:35PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> The Buildbot has detected a new failure of linux_64. > >> Full details are available at: > >> http://fenics.org:8010/dolfin/linux_64/builds/1082 > >> > >> Buildbot URL: http://fenics.org:8010/dolfin/ > >> > >> Buildslave for this Build: x64-linux > >> > >> Build Reason: > >> Build Source Stamp: HEAD > >> Blamelist: Anders Logg > >> > >> BUILD FAILED: failed test > >> > >> sincerely, > >> -The Buildbot > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> DOLFIN-dev mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev > > > > Should be fixed now. I removed the extra test added to > > Coefficient::attach. > > > > Don't know yet why the extra test breaks (probably in the call to > > Function::in). > > This call compares the function space object addresses, so it's no > wonder it fails.
That might very well be the reason, but the error message seems to indicate something else. But why shouldn't it be ok to compare the pointers? I imagine that shared_ptr has implemented a reasonable comparison operator that does the right thing. -- Anders
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
