On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:26:47PM +0100, Anders Logg wrote: > The MetaData.ufl example is failing in the quadrature representation. > > Kristian, could you have a look and see what goes wrong. Then I can > continue to make the incremental/combined integral stuff work.
On second thought, maybe we should skip the whole thing with having different representations inside the same tabulate_tensor function for the following reasons: 1. It leads to complications in the code generation. 2. It probably doesn't make much difference since if quadrature is required for one part of an integral, then it is likely the cost is low for including the other terms inside the existing quadrature loop. 3. The situation will not arise often since UFL will anyway group terms with the same dx inside the same integral and then all will have the same representation. So the cases where this is useful are rare (because of the UFL grouping), it won't give any speedup and it's complicated to implement... We will still have the possibility of different representations for integrals on different subdomains and for cell, interior and exterior facet integrals. If this sounds ok, I can add some checks in analysis.py that force all UFL integrals that will be grouped as part of the same UFC integral to use the same representation. Btw, does quadrature handle different quadrature degree for different integrals that become part of the same tabulate_tensor? If not, we can force metadata to be the same for all integrals that belong together. -- Anders
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
