On Wednesday February 9 2011 23:19:10 Anders Logg wrote: > B1;2600;0cOn Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 11:03:28PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > On 09/02/11 22:43, Anders Logg wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 10:11:40AM -0800, Johan Hake wrote: > > >> Hello! > > >> > > >> I am pretty sure the reason the Macbot still complains (mesh unit > > >> test) is that refine is broken for SWIG 2.0. > > >> > > >> I think it is some premature destruction of a refined mesh. I would > > >> suggest we implement a full shared_ptr version of the interface to > > >> get around this problem. I have no clue of why it works for SWIG > > >> 1.3.40. Probably because a faulty implementation. > > >> > > >> I also suggest more developers upgrade to SWIG 2.0.1 and maybe one of > > >> the linux build bots two? If it is only the Macbot that uses SWIG 2.0 > > >> it is easily to think it is some Mac specific error. > > >> > > >> Johan > > > > > > I plan to merge with main tomorrow if my buildbot is green. Then Marie > > > also needs to merge (we have both touched refine.h/cpp). Then we can > > > sort out the shared_ptrs. > > > > I really don't get the approach to hierarchies. Mesh refinement was > > simple, and now something simple has become complex (with bugs that are > > hard to track down because of the introduced complexity). > > I really don't understand what the problem is. Mesh refinement is just > as simple as it used to be, the Mesh class itself is (almost) as > simple as it used to be (one added inheritance), and the Hierarchical > base class is also a very simple class (just stores two pointers for > child and parent). All the complexity is in refine.cpp, which only > kicks in if you do something like refine(variational_problem) or > refine(function_space). > > > This hierarchy business looks viral - now I get Swig warnings for > > DirichleBC. > > > > I would much rather keep basic classes simple, and have hierarchical > > containers that can keep track of parent/child relationships. The > > present approach seems to take a narrow/immediate view on the issue. > > I think that would lead to more complex code. We would need to store > quite a few different relationship trees separately from the objects. > > The problems we see now are related to SWIG and correct use of > shared_ptrs. We've had quite a few SWIG/shared_ptr problems in the > past and figured out how to fix them. I'm sure we will handle this > too.
I think we(TM) have figured it out now! Garth and you, have a point regarding Hierarchical causing a lot of trouble for the SWIG interface as we have a split implementation for SWIG 2.0 and 1.3.X for the shared_ptr interface. But hopefully (Ubuntu 11.10?) we will be able to ditch 1.3.40 sometime. Johan _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
