On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Johan Hake <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday February 2 2011 07:57:10 Garth N. Wells wrote: >> On 02/02/11 15:46, Johan Hake wrote: >> > On Wednesday February 2 2011 02:31:02 Johannes Ring wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 11:35:28PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: >> >>>> On 01/02/11 23:19, Johan Hake wrote: >> >>>>> On Tuesday February 1 2011 15:14:21 Anders Logg wrote: >> >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:12:05PM -0800, Johan Hake wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Tuesday February 1 2011 14:53:55 Anders Logg wrote: >> >>>>>>>> Something seems to go wrong with the Hierarchical Python wrappers. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> C++ program: >> >>>>>>>> UnitSquare mesh(3, 3); >> >>>>>>>> mesh._debug(); >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Output: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Debugging hierarchical object. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> has_parent() = 0 >> >>>>>>>> _parent.get() = 0 >> >>>>>>>> _parent.count() = 0 >> >>>>>>>> has_child() = 0 >> >>>>>>>> _child.get() = 0 >> >>>>>>>> _child.count() = 0 >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Debugging hierarchical object. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> has_parent() = 0 >> >>>>>>>> _parent.get() = 0 >> >>>>>>>> _parent.count() = 0 >> >>>>>>>> has_child() = 0 >> >>>>>>>> _child.get() = 0 >> >>>>>>>> _child.count() = 0 >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Python program: >> >>>>>>>> mesh = UnitSquare(3, 3) >> >>>>>>>> mesh._debug() >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Debugging hierarchical object. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> has_parent() = 0 >> >>>>>>>> _parent.get() = 0 >> >>>>>>>> _parent.count() = 0 >> >>>>>>>> has_child() = 0 >> >>>>>>>> _child.get() = 0 >> >>>>>>>> _child.count() = 0 >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Debugging hierarchical object. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> has_parent() = 1 >> >>>>>>>> _parent.get() = cbd47290 >> >>>>>>>> _parent.count() = -878438560 >> >>>>>>>> has_child() = 1 >> >>>>>>>> _child.get() = cbd47290 >> >>>>>>>> _child.count() = -878438560 >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> The first call to Hierarchical::_debug is made from the >> >>>>>>>> constructor of Hierarchical and is correct in both C++ and >> >>>>>>>> Python, but then the Python object seems to lose contact with the >> >>>>>>>> reality. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Yes quite so... >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I changed locally to swig 2.0 and the problem went away. shared_ptr >> >>>>>>> support has been rewritten in 2.0. I might be able to hack the >> >>>>>>> interface of Hierarchical in a similar manner as I did for >> >>>>>>> Variables. Just implementing the interface again in the C++ layer. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> But I am not sure. The shared_ptr part of the SWIG interface starts >> >>>>>>> to be quite complex now with supporting SWIG version 1.3.37 to >> >>>>>>> 1.3.40 and 2.0 >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Maybe we should force SWIG 2.0? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Is that possible? It's not in Ubuntu yet, or is it? >> >>>> >> >>>> It's in 11.04 >> >>>> >> >>>> Swig is super easy to install. >> >>> >> >>> If we can include SWIG installation in Dorsal and Johannes is able to >> >>> make packages that rely on SWIG 2.0 then we might as well move to 2.0 >> >>> to save us (mainly Johan) a lot of trouble. >> >> >> >> I tried to build UFC and DOLFIN in Debian unstable with the swig2.0 >> >> package (same package as in Ubuntu 11.04). One problem is that this >> >> package does not contain /usr/bin/swig but only /usr/bin/swig2.0. I >> >> fixed this by setting -DSWIG_EXECUTABLE:FILEPATH=/usr/bin/swig2.0 when >> >> building UFC and DOLFIN, but running the poisson Python demo failed >> >> because Instant was unable to find swig. The reason for naming the >> >> binary "swig2.0" is probably that SWIG 1.3 is still the default in >> >> Debian (and Ubuntu). >> > >> > Ok then it might be difficult. We could maybe add some funcitonality to >> > instant to define what executable it shold look for? >> >> We should definitely have that - DOLFIN should be able to pass the Swig >> executable name and path. I've already seen that having two versions of >> Swig installed is problematic. > > Ok, then we need some hierachical setting of what swig excecutable it should > look for. As I am compiling swig from source, which gives me a plain 'swig' > excecutable I would not like DOLFIN to use this and not swig2.0. > > I can see if I can implement this. We can add something like: > > parameters["jit_compilation"]["swig_executable"] = "swig2.0" > parameters["jit_compilation"]["swig_version"] = "2.0.0" > > If swig2.0 is not found we look for swig. I think we can do this from dolfin > (using instant). When we have found the correct swig executable we cache it > and use it when we call instant. > > I am not sure how setting the path will work. If we include it I think it > should be optional. So that just looking in the path after the excecutable > should be the default option.
FYI: I just thought of another problem with moving to SWIG 2.0. The Trilinos package in Debian and Ubuntu is not built with SWIG 2.0. This means that I must build the DOLFIN package without support for Trilinos. Johannes _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
