On fr., 2009-01-23 at 14:21 +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Johan Hake <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > Exactly. > > >> 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. > > Exactly. And we can add the swig version if instant creates the > signature itself. > > >> Should it just import the module or regenerate it? > > > > Then ffc/dolfin will provide a different signature and a new module will be > > compiled. > > Exactly. > > Martin
ok, no changes to instant then :) Kent _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
