I think I can refrain from writing functions on piecewise constant symmetric tensor elements to vtk files for a while :)
Martin On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 01:28:26PM +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> This check isn't general either. >> >>>> >> >>> Can you give me an example of when it fails? >> >> >> >> It will fail for symmetric tensor elements. >> >> >> > >> > Which we don't yet support :). >> >> Which SFC with UFL will support quite soon, >> and which our shared interface UFC allows :) >> >> >> >>>> // Test for cell-based element type >> >>>> - const uint tdim = mesh.topology().dim(); >> >>>> - bool only_cell_dofs = dofmap.needs_mesh_entities(tdim); >> >>>> - for (uint i = 0; i < tdim; i++) >> >>>> - { >> >>>> - if (dofmap.needs_mesh_entities(i)) >> >>>> - only_cell_dofs = false; >> >>>> - } >> >>>> - if (only_cell_dofs) >> >>>> + if( dofmap.local_dimension() == std::pow(mesh.topology().dim(), rank) >> >>>> ) >> >>>> data_type = "cell"; >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> This is the check I suggested to Anders earlier: >> >>>> >> >>>> const uint tdim = mesh.topology().dim(); >> >>>> if(dofmap.num_entity_dofs(tdim) == dofmap.local_dimension()) >> >>>> >> >>> What does num_entity_dofs(tdim) return? >> >>> >> >>> Garth >> >> >> >> The number of dofs associated with a cell (mesh entity of dimension tdim). >> >> dofmap.num_entity_dofs(0) would return the number of dofs associated >> >> with the vertices. >> > >> > OK. That would make the test easy. >> > >> >> >> >>>> Or hasn't FFC implemented UFC 1.1 yet? >> > >> > FFC hasn't implemented num_entity_dofs(tdim) >> > >> > Garth >> >> It's more than ten months since UFC 1.1 was >> released, it would be nice if FFC implemented it. >> >> Martin > > It should be fairly simple to fix, but a lot of work is piled up for > FFC that I plan to look at after the release of DOLFIN 0.9.0. > > Will the current fix work for a while? > > -- > Anders > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAklPiLgACgkQTuwUCDsYZdHUQwCgjgpYBpkZiRNpSyx37oYn/WeJ > EdQAoJHeRMjhamkp6wZnCDtflNvEedYd > =zhR9 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > DOLFIN-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev > > _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
