On Friday 23 January 2009 14:02:31 [email protected] wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:33 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:40:21PM +0100, Johan Hake wrote: > >>>> On Friday 23 January 2009 12:15:51 Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > >>>> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Johan Hake <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > > On Friday 23 January 2009 11:54:50 Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > >>>> > >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Johan Hake <[email protected]> > >>>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >> > On Friday 23 January 2009 11:27:31 Ola Skavhaug wrote: > >>>> > >> >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Johan Hake <[email protected]> > >>>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >> >> > On Friday 23 January 2009 10:09:12 Martin Sandve Alnæs > >>>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >> >> > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Johannes Ring > >>>> > >> >> > > <[email protected]> > >>>> > >> >> > > >>>> > >> >> > wrote: > >>>> > >> >> > > > On Thu, January 22, 2009 19:10, Johan Hake wrote: > >>>> > >> >> > > >> On Thursday 22 January 2009 17:02:41 A Navaei wrote: > >>>> > >> >> > > >>> Johan, > >>>> > >> >> > > >>> > >>>> > >> >> > > >>> Thanks, instant-clean did the trick! Maybe this should > >>>> > >>>> be > >>>> > >>>> > >> >> > > >>> somehow automated. > >>>> > >> >> > > >> > >>>> > >> >> > > >> Yes, I have thought about it. > >>>> > >> >> > > >> > >>>> > >> >> > > >> Is it possible to add a call to instant-clean in the > >>>> > >>>> install > >>>> > >>>> > >> >> > > >> script of the ffc > >>>> > >> >> > > >> and dolfin packages Johannes? > >>>> > >> >> > > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > Yes, it is possible to add post installation scripts to > >>>> > >>>> the FFC > >>>> > >>>> > >> >> > > > and DOLFIN packages (and perhaps Instant) that runs > >>>> > >> >> > > > instant-clean. Should I add this? > >>>> > >> >> > > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > Johannes > >>>> > >> >> > > > >>>> > >> >> > > Can you add it to SyFi as well please? But we don't want > >>>> > >>>> this in > >>>> > >>>> > >> >> > > development versions though, we should at least have an > >>>> > >>>> option > >>>> > >>>> > >> >> > > to avoid it. > >>>> > >> >> > > >>>> > >> >> > I think it will be sufficient to add the automatic cleaning > >>>> > >>>> in > >>>> the > >>>> > >>>> > >> >> > ubuntu scripts. > >>>> > >> >> > > >>>> > >> >> > I can add the swig version to the signature generation in > >>>> > >>>> ffc > >>>> and > >>>> > >>>> > >> >> > dolfin. > >>>> > >> >> > > >>>> > >> >> > While on the topic, does instant check whether swig is > >>>> > >>>> installed, > >>>> > >>>> > >> >> > when a module is built? Also I have on several occasions now > >>>> > >> >> > checked for the swig version. Should I put this code in > >>>> > >>>> instant, > >>>> > >>>> > >> >> > e.g. > >>>> > >> >> > > >>>> > >> >> > check_swig_version("1.3.35") > >>>> > >> >> > > >>>> > >> >> > It will return false if the current swig version is lesser > >>>> > >>>> than > >>>> > >>>> > >> >> > "1.3.35"? I think it would be natural for instant to provide > >>>> > >>>> such a > >>>> > >>>> > >> >> > function. > >>>> > >> >> > >>>> > >> >> There is a related problem that needs to be adressed here. If > >>>> > >>>> you > >>>> > >>>> > >> >> build an extension of a module wrapped with version x of swig, > >>>> > >>>> you > >>>> > >>>> > >> >> should require the same version of swig in instant. Perhaps > >>>> > >>>> the > >>>> > >>>> > >> >> check_swig_version("1.3.35") should only return true if you > >>>> > >>>> have > >>>> > >>>> > >> >> exactly that version. Another function, a-la > >>>> > >> >> > >>>> > >> >> assert_swig_min_version("1.3.35") > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > This could probably be kept in one function. By default the > >>>> > >>>> function > >>>> > >>>> > >> > returns whether a version of swig is equal or greater than the > >>>> > >> > prescribed version, and: > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > check_swig_version("1.3.35", equal = True) > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > will return true only if the version is the same as the > >>>> > >>>> prescribed > >>>> > >>>> > >> > one? > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > The assertion functionality will then be handled by the > >>>> > >>>> function > >>>> that > >>>> > >>>> > >> > use instant, i.e., ffc, sfc, dolfin compile_function a.s.o. > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> But FFC isn't compiled with SWIG. Dolfin will have to do that, > >>>> > >>>> for > >>>> > >>>> > >> example at import time. > >>>> > > > >>>> > > No, but it produces code that is compiled with swig. And this code > >>>> > >>>> should > >>>> > >>>> > > be compiled with the same swig version that dolfin is compiled > >>>> > >>>> with. > >>>> Then > >>>> > >>>> > > dolfin need to hand its swig version to ffc when it is using it so > >>>> > >>>> ffc > >>>> > >>>> > > can check which version is installed while swigging compiled > >>>> > >>>> forms. > >>>> If > >>>> > >>>> > > this version is not the same as the handed version from dolfin -> > >>>> > >>>> raise > >>>> > >>>> > > error. > >>>> > > >>>> > In my opinion, > >>>> > > >>>> > dolfin gets its swig version > >>>> > dolfin calls instant to check whether it's compatible with the > >>>> > >>>> current > >>>> > >>>> > swig > >>>> > > >>>> > is simpler than > >>>> > > >>>> > dolfin gets its swig version > >>>> > dolfin passes its swig version to ffc > >>>> > ffc calls instant to check whether it's compatible with the > >>>> > >>>> current > >>>> swig > >>>> > >>>> > why pass the info to ffc at all? It would need to be handled in > >>>> > >>>> dolfin > >>>> > >>>> > for function compilation anyway. If dolfin checks that the current > >>>> > swig is compatible with the version it was compiled with at import > >>>> > time, it doesn't have to be checked anywhere else. With your model, > >>>> > both DOLFIN, FFC and SFC would need to be modified. > >>>> > >>>> Sounds reasonable. Dolfin defines it own jit function and the check > >>>> could be > >>>> added here. > >>>> > >>>> We will still have the problem for older forms, which are allready in > >>>> the > >>>> cache and are compiled with an older swig. Putting the swig version in > >>>> the > >>>> signature would prevent this to happen though. > >>>> > >>>> Johan > >>> > >>> I think we should throw as much as possible into the signature, just > >>> to make sure. DOLFIN passes some signature prefix to the form compiler > >>> (which could be the DOLFIN version and the SWIG version), then the > >>> form compiler adds whatever it feels to add to the signature (form > >>> signature, form compiler name and form compiler version), then Instant > >>> adds whatever it feels like adding. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Anders > >> > >> Ok, so Instant should add Swig version to the signature. Dolfin and the > > > > No, as Johan pointed out, Instant can't add to the signature. Instant > > will either construct its own signature from the files and options it > > gets, or use the provided signature as-is. So the form compilers > > should add whatever they need to the signature. > > > > Martin > > But the form compilers / Dolfin do not know which SWIG version Instant > will use > (although this might not be a big issue since it is probably basically the > same process > that decides on which SWIG to use in both cases).
The form compiler/dolfin can get the present swig version (instant can provide a function swig_version()?), which will be used to compile a signature. > Anyway, this is really independent of Dolfin and the compilers. What > should Instant > do eg. if SWIG has been updated since the last time it inlined the exact > same code? I think Instant should just do what it is told to. Any checks need to be done in the caller of instant. > Should it just import the module or regenerate it? Then ffc/dolfin will provide a different signature and a new module will be compiled. Johan _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
