On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 02:36:26PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > On 2014-01-29 14:20, Anders Logg wrote: > >On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 02:18:08PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >>On 2014-01-29 13:42, Johan Hake wrote: > >>>On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]> > >>>wrote: > >>> > >>>>On 2014-01-29 09:35, Johan Hake wrote: > >>>> > >>>>On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]> > >>>>wrote: > >>>> > >>>>On 2014-01-28 21:06, Anders Logg wrote: > >>>>On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 08:33:38PM +0100, Johan Hake wrote: > >>>> > >>>>On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Martin Sandve Alnæs > >>>><[email protected]> > >>>>wrote: > >>>> > >>>> What if we move ufc.h to dolfin? Keeping the ufcutils module > >>>>in ffc. Then > >>>> we can maybe write a test that checks if a given ffc > >>>>generates ufc code > >>>> that implements the ufc interface of a given dolfin. > >>>> > >>>>Sounds like a good idea! Then we could incorporate the CMake > >>>>configure process > >>>>into DOLFIN CMake. We have also loosely talked about removing UFC > >>>>and > >>>>eventually generate DOLFIN code, which resonates with moving UFC to > >>>>DOLFIN. > >>>> > >>>>I am not convinced this is a good idea: > >>>> > >>>> I'm not convinced either - doesn't seem like a natural split. How > >>>>about: > >>>> > >>>> 1. We try letting distutils take care of building the SWIG > >>>>wrappers > >>>>in place of CMake: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>http://docs.python.org/2/distutils/setupscript.html#extension-source-files > >>>>[1] > >>>>[2] > >>>> > >>>> or; > >>>> > >>>>This was the case before we added shared_ptr to ufc. Then we > >>>>decided > >>>>to add boost and a proper configure system was needed for that. Not > >>>>sure we want to go back to distutils. > >>> > >>> Maybe we should switch to std::shared_ptr, in which case we won't > >>>need Boost and compilation will be easy. > >>> > >>> Yes but logic wrt what namespace that should be used needs to be > >>>included std::tr1:: or just std::, that might be trivial but the > >>>amount of configuration that can be done for the extension module is > >>>very limited in distutils. > >>> > >> > >>I'd advocate for using std::shared_ptr. It's been in gcc since 4.3 > >>(March 2008) and is available for all the major compilers. > > > >You mean a switch to std::shared_ptr throughout DOLFIN? > > > > Yes. > > Are there any important-to-support systems on which this would be a > problem? All the systems I use have good support for > std::shared_ptr.
Not that I know, but I'm not using very exotic systems. I suggest this is discussed in a new thread before we make the change. This is buried quite deep down in a technical discussion on packaging of the UFC swig wrappers... -- Anders _______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
