On 24 May 2011 15:24, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 02:56:26PM +0200, Kristian Ølgaard wrote:
>
>> > +\editornote{Explain what \emp{FE0} etc. mean in
>> > Figure~\ref{oelgaard-2:fig:O_simplify_code}!}
>>
>> There is no FE0 in that code extract.
>> Furthermore, in the text we write:
>
> Yes, there is, lots of them:
Those are FE0_D10 and FE0_D01....
> A[j*3 + k] += (FE0_D10[0][j]*FE0_D10[0][k]*I[0] +\
> FE0_D10[0][j]*FE0_D01[0][k]*I[1] +\
> FE0_D01[0][j]*FE0_D10[0][k]*I[1] +\
> FE0_D01[0][j]*FE0_D01[0][k]*I[2]);
>
>> ... in Figure~\ref{oelgaard-2:fig:O_simplify_code}, where again
>> only code different from that in
>> Figure~\ref{oelgaard-2:fig:standard_code} has been included.
>>
>> Any symbols in the code which has not already been accounted for in
>> the 'standard_code' is explained in the text following
>> the 'simplify_code'.
>
> "FE" only appears in the above code extract, nowhere else.
That's embarrassing, after actually reading the text I see that you are right.
I believe the text is OK if I change FE0_D* to Psi_vu_D* in the code
which follows the notation in all other code extracts?
>> > +\editornote{Very hard to read legends and axes in
>> > Figure~\label{oelgaard-2:fig:laplace_stats_2}, please fix!}
>>
>> Does this apply to both 'stats' figures?
>
> Only one of them for some reason. It comes out as a blur in the
> printer. Anyway, we will be changing some margins in the book etc and
> will have reason to double-check all figures so don't worry about this
> now.
Strange, I didn't notice anything funny on my printer but I haven't
printed it lately so I don't know.
OK, let's wait and see then.
>> > +\editornote{Mismatch between
>> > Figure~\ref{fig:oelgaard-2:fig:hyper_stats_2} and text which claims that
>> > \emp{-basis -zeros} is the best option.}
>>
>> This has been fixed a long time ago!
>
> Indeed. I've removed the comment now.
>
>> I hope this doesn't mean that some of the other errors have been
>> reintroduced in the merge!
>
> No, I'm applying everything manually from a printed copy of the book.
OK, good.
Kristian
> --
> Anders
>
>
>> Kristian
>>
>> > Comparing the number of flops involved to compute the element tensor
>> > to the weighted Laplace example, it is clear that this problem is
>> > considerably more complex. The \ffc{} compile times in
>> > Table~\ref{oelgaard-2:tab:hyper_stats_1} show that the \emp{-simplify}
>> > optimization, as anticipated, is the most expensive to perform. The
>> > g++ compile times for all test cases were in the range two to six
>> > -seconds for all optimization options. A point to note is that scope
>> > -for reducing the flop count is considerably greater for this problem
>> > -than for the weighted Laplace problem, with a difference in the number
>> > -of flops spanning several orders of magnitude between the different
>> > +seconds for all optimization options. A point to note is that the
>> > +scope for reducing the flop count is considerably greater for this
>> > +problem than for the weighted Laplace problem, with a difference in
>> > +the number of flops spanning several orders of magnitude between the
>> > +different
>> > \ffc{} optimizations. This compares to a difference in flops of
>> > roughly a factor two between the non-optimized and the most effective
>> > optimization strategy for the weighted Laplace problem. In the case
>> > @@ -714,7 +720,7 @@
>> > this effect becomes less pronounced. Another point to note, in
>> > connection with the g++ optimizations, is that switching on additional
>> > optimizations beyond \emp{-O2} does not seem to provide any further
>> > -improvements in run time. For the hyperelasticity example, the option
>> > +improvements in run-time. For the hyperelasticity example, the option
>> > \emp{-zeros} has a positive effect on the performance, not only when
>> > used alone but in particular when combined with the other \ffc{}
>> > optimizations. This is in contrast with the weighted Laplace
>> > @@ -769,8 +775,8 @@
>> > The test and trial functions are denoted by $v, u \in V_{h}$, with
>> >
>> > \begin{equation}
>> > - V_{h} = \bracc{v \in \brac{H^{1}\brac{\Omega}}^2: \ v\vert_T \in
>> > - \brac{P_{q}\brac{T}}^2 \foralls T \in \mathcal{T}}
>> > + V_{h} = \bracc{v \in [H^{1}\brac{\Omega}]^2: \ v\vert_T \in
>> > + [P_{q}\brac{T}]^2 \foralls T \in \mathcal{T}}
>> > \label{oelgaard-2:eq:elastictity_H1_vector_space}
>> > \end{equation}
>> > %
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics-authors
>> Post to : [email protected]
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics-authors
>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics-authors
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics-authors
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
