On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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.
What are the problems with these packages? > Also, Trilinos 10.8 will require Swig 2.0. OK. Johannes _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
