On Thursday February 10 2011 02:11:42 Johannes Ring wrote: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 09:43:16AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >> On 10/02/11 09:39, Anders Logg wrote: > >> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 09:22:39AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >> >> On 10/02/11 09:19, Anders Logg wrote: > >> >>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 09:11:26AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >> >>>> On 10/02/11 09:09, Anders Logg wrote: > >> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 08:48:55AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >> >>>>>> On 10/02/11 07:38, Johan Hake wrote: > >> >>>>>>> On Wednesday February 9 2011 23:32:55 Anders Logg wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 04:40:19PM -0800, Johan Hake wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>> Nice fix! > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> I thought we needed to introduce shared_ptr versions of > >> >>>>>>>>> refinements call. But I realise this fix only work for SWIG > >> >>>>>>>>> 2.0. As all shared_ptr_foo are renamed to foo. > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> We need to add an extra layer of %rename/%ignore for the SWIG > >> >>>>>>>>> 2.0 case. > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> I can do this. But again it introduces another layer of > >> >>>>>>>>> complexity you mention in your other post. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> That didn't seem to work. The buildbot now says: > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> File > >> >>>>>>>> "/home/fenicsslave/jhbuildbot/fenics/lib/python2.6/site-package > >> >>>>>>>> s/dolfin/mes h/refine.py", line 30, in refine > >> >>>>>>>> return mesh.child_shared_ptr() > >> >>>>>>>> TypeError: in method 'HierarchicalMesh_child_shared_ptr', > >> >>>>>>>> argument 1 of type 'dolfin::Hierarchical< dolfin::Mesh > *' > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> What does that mean? mesh.child_shared_ptr() should return a > >> >>>>>>>> shared_ptr to an object of class T (in this case Mesh), which > >> >>>>>>>> it does in the C++ interface. It should not return a pointer > >> >>>>>>>> to an object of class Hierarchical<T>. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> It is related to the "fix" Garth introduced. He used > >> >>>>>>> foo_shared_ptr, but that one does not work for SWIG < 2.0. > >> >>>>>>> These methods are now ignored or renamed for all SWIG versions, > >> >>>>>>> and everything should be well and fine for both versions of > >> >>>>>>> SWIG. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> I don't think that this is really a fix. The Python refine should > >> >>>>>> return a shared_ptr, otherwise we can have problems with things > >> >>>>>> going out of scope. The underlying problem is SWIG not wrapping > >> >>>>>> the Mesh shared_ptrs properly. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> But isn't that exactly what's happening now? The C++ > >> >>>>> shared_ptr_foo() functions are renamed to foo() so when you call > >> >>>>> foo() in Python you get the shared_ptr. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> That was my fix, which was reverted. Looks to me like a reference > >> >>>> is returned. > >> >>> > >> >>> From site-packages/dolfin/mesh/refine.py: > >> >>> > >> >>> return mesh.child() > >> >>> > >> >>> From dolfin/swig/shared_ptr_classes.i: > >> >>> > >> >>> boost::shared_ptr<DERIVED_TYPE> child() > >> >>> { return self->child_shared_ptr(); } > >> >>> > >> >>> So when mesh.child() is called in refine.py, it really returns > >> >>> mesh.child_shared_ptr(). > >> >> > >> >> OK. > >> >> > >> >> It' pretty confusing having stuff dotted around in different files. > >> >> We'll be able to remove it when we moving to SWIG 2. > >> > > >> > Is it the case that it won't be in Ubuntu 11.04 and we will have to > >> > wait until 11.10? > >> > >> It will be in 11.04, but the executable will be called swig2.0. > >> > >> The sooner we can move, the better. Saves maintaining and testing double > >> SWIG code. > > > > Agree. The new name of the executable shouldn't be a problem. > > > > Isn't it just a matter of (i) some fixes to the buildsystem for DOLFIN > > (which I'm sure Johannes can handle) and (ii) some fixes to Instant > > and the UFC wrapper utils? > > It is only Instant that must be fixed.
It's on my todo list Johan > Johannes > > >> > And what's the status of the Python Trilinos wrappers? Do we need > >> > them? I guess there's a small chance that Trilinos will move to 2.0 > >> > any time soon. > >> > >> The next PyTrilinos release will require SWIG 2.0. It should also fix > >> the MPI finalisation issues. > > > > ok. > > > > -- > > Anders > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
