On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 10:32:53PM +0100, Johan Hake wrote: > > Wasn't the deal that we should merge UFC into FFC, and not the other way > > around? > > Yes, of course. At least I got it right in the issue... > > > Before we switch from cmake to distutils in ufc I suggest we make the > > shared_ptr switch in UFC/DOLFIN. I can take responsibility for this > switch in > > the SWIG layer. > > Great, that's the hard part. I could do the switch in UFC and DOLFIN > but I'm not sure it would help. I expect many things will break until > the SWIG layer is fixed. > Sure no Python tests will run until we have the SWIG layer in place. > Would it help if I switched in UFC + DOLFIN (except for SWIG) and > pushed to new branches, or is it just as easy to run dolfinreplace? A lot of things can be done with dolfiunreplace, but things are bound to go wrong. So if you make the switch in the DOLFIN/UFC/FFC C++ layer first and at least make everything compile. I also suggest that you get the C++ code generation in-place too before we fix the SWIG layer. > > Also the build.py has nothing to do the with the UFC build system. That > is a > > module responsible for JIT-compile FFC generated code UFC code. > > It uses Instant. I assumed somewhere along the chain some CMake file > generated by UFC would be invoked. > That is true, and I suggest we keep this. The reason we switched to CMake in instant was due to inferior compiler configuration support in distutils compared to CMake. We can still install UFC with distutils and generate and install a UFCConfig.cmake file for compiling agains UFC using distutils. Johan > > -- > Anders >
_______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
