A couple comments as I'm catching up on this thread. On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 18:36, Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG311) <[email protected]> wrote: >> Would it really be completely distinct? Flow users, for example, >> aren't going to be tempted to call existing functions to evaluate >> intermediate terms like mixing rules, Reynolds stresses, etc. that >> appear in both strong and weak forms of the equations?
My usual strategy is to dump the physics into a symbolic math program (sympy is usually adequate) and generate exact forcing terms using the 'ccode' function, then paste this output into my source. If the user provides the strong form in C++, you can skip some of the symbolic math, but you still need to obtain derivatives of their manufactured solution. This could be done with AD, but that requires heavy templating or very experimental source transformation (source transformation is mature for Fortran, not for C/C++) and of course adds dependencies and the temptation above. Also, AD is not sufficient to apply MMS to integro-differential equations (something I was doing a few years ago, albeit not with libmesh). I don't think you should worry at all about speed while in verification, manufactured solutions often involve enough transcendental functions to dominate the cost of residual evaluation anyway. Jed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf _______________________________________________ Libmesh-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
