On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:48:31PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > On 2013-10-16 20:17, Anders Logg wrote: > >On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:00:08PM +0100, Chris Richardson wrote: > >>On 16/10/2013 09:25, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >>>Does anyone have an opinion on keeping or removing CGAL from DOLFIN? > >>>Below are some pros and cons: > >>> > >>>- CGAL makes DOLFIN slow to build and builds use a lot of memory. > >>>- CGAL is unpredictable in throwing errors (predictable in that it > >>>will throw cryptic errors, unpredictable when or with which compiler). > >>>- CGAL is difficult to understand and the latest version has very > >>>cryptic interface changes. > >>>- Almost all of the random DOLFIN buildbot failures are due to CGAL > >>>mesh generation failures. > >>> > >>>+ CGAL provides mesh generation for a variety of simple shape > >>>combinations (the DOLFIN interface to CGAL is not rich enough for > >>>anything serious). > >> > >>Agreed. Anyone serious will make their mesh independently, so CGAL > >>is really just an annoying toy in this context... (!) > > > >That may be true, but simple also has a use. > > > >It's an optional dependency, so why is it a big problem? > > > > (a) the tests keep failing randomly; (b) it breaks with GCC 4.8; and > (c) updating to CGAL 3.4 is a cryptic mess.
I think (a) enable the tests only on one buildbot, the one where we know it fails the least (b) + (c) try to find a replacement backend mesher (or write our own mesher) as a long-term solution -- Anders _______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
