On 03/02/11 17:42, Johannes Ring wrote: > 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. >
I wouldn't bother about this - the Debian/Ubuntu PETSc and Trilinos packages are not great. Also, Trilinos 10.8 will require Swig 2.0. Garth > Johannes > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
