dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 10:38:40PM +0100, Anders Logg wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 06:25:18PM +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> > 2008/11/3 Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > > On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 03:55:31PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Anders Logg wrote:
> > >> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 02:38:36PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Anders Logg wrote:
> > >> >>> On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 11:22:26AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > >> >>>> Anders Logg wrote:
> > >> >>>>> On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 06:29:25PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > >> >>>>>> Anders Logg wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 05:52:21PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>> Do we want to insist that Dirichlet bc functions that do not appear
> > >> >>>>>>>> inside a form are constructed with a FunctionSpace? DirichletBC is
> > >> >>>>>>>> supplied with a FunctionSpace, so if the bc Function does not have a
> > >> >>>>>>>> FunctionSpace, we could attach one automatically.
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> Garth
> > >> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >> >>>>>>>> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> > >> >>>>>>>> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> > >> >>>>>>>> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
> > >> >>>>>>> I think this is already handled. Look in the Poisson demo. It uses a
> > >> >>>>>>> Constant to set the BC and it does not have a FunctionSpace attached
> > >> >>>>>>> to it. The DirichletBC class now uses its own FunctionSpace rather
> > >> >>>>>>> than the one that the Function has (if any). There is a check (in
> > >> >>>>>>> DirichletBC::check()) that checks that the FunctionSpace for the
> > >> >>>>>>> Function is the same as the one in the DirichletBC.
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> It works for Constant, but not for Functions. I was getting an error
> > >> >>>>>> when Function::interpolate is called. Function::interpolate leads to
> > >> >>>>>> eval being called, in which case there is a test for the FunctionSpace
> > >> >>>>>> which fails. Constant provides its own eval and therefore doesn't have a
> > >> >>>>>> problem.
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> For now, I've added a test in DirichletBC for the FunctionSpace. What we
> > >> >>>>>> can add is an attach function if there is no FunctionSpace associated.
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> Garth
> > >> >>>>> In which demo does this show up? Is there a simple way I can comment
> > >> >>>>> something out to reproduce the error so I understand what goes wrong?
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>> Look at /demo/nls/nonlinearpoisson/cpp.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> If you change
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>    DirichletBoundaryCondition g(V, t);
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> to
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>    DirichletBoundaryCondition g(t);
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> it will break down.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Garth
> > >> >>> ok I see the problem now.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> The problem is a user may choose to either overload a scalar eval
> > >> >>> function or a tensor eval function and we need to decide which one
> > >> >>> after the callback from ufc::function::evaluate(). If the
> > >> >>> FunctionSpace is not known, we can't decide which one to pick.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> If we insist that one should be able to pass a Function without a
> > >> >>> FunctionSpace to a DirichletBC, then we must remove the scalar eval
> > >> >>> function.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >> Fine with me. I think that it makes things simpler because the eval
> > >> >> interface remains the same for all user-defined functions.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Garth
> > >> >
> > >> > ok. It will also look the same as in Python.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> We discussed recently passing an object to eval() which contains some
> > >> data. It would be useful the object also carried information on the rank
> > >> and dimension of the function to allow checks and switching between
> > >> 1D/2D/3D problems.
> > >>
> > >> Garth
> > >
> > > Yes, this would be nice, but it won't work as long as we don't require
> > > that a Function always has a FunctionSpace. We could add some new
> > > classes to handle error checking and data for user-defined Functions:
> > >
> > >  void eval(Values& values, Data& data)
> > >  {
> > >    values[0] = sin(data.x[0]);
> > >  }
> > >
> > > The class Values could check that data is not assigned to any illegal
> > > indices and it could also check that all values have been assigned
> > > etc, but if the Function does not know its FunctionSpace, this can't
> > > be done.
> > >
> > > Another complication related to this but also to the thread-safety of
> > > cell() and facet() is that UFC gets in the middle of the call
> > > sequence:
> > >
> > >  assemble()
> > >  |--> Function::interpolate()
> > >       |--> FiniteElement::evaluate_dof()
> > >            |--> ufc::finite_element::evaluate_dof
> > >                 |--> ufc::function::evaluate()
> > >                      |--> Function::eval()
> > >
> > > Since eval() is called from the generated UFC code, any arguments like
> > > cell and facet passed from the assembler will be lost on the way.
> > >
> > > Should we extend the UFC interface to allow sending a void* to
> > > evaluate_dof which it will propagate to evaluate()?
> > 
> > That's possible, but not very safe.
> > 
> > A typesafe alternative is that dolfin::Function doesn't inherit ufc::function,
> > but a ufc::function subclass is created which has a dolfin::Function
> > which it calls and a dolfin::Data & which it sends in the call.
> > Then we avoid ufc complications in dolfin::Function, and one such
> > wrapper function can be created for each thread.
> > It doesn't really add any more function calls, since it replaces the
> > existing ufc::function::evaluate in the call stack you wrote above.
> 
> Sounds good. I'll try something like this.

This is now implemented. Take a look in Function::interpolate(),

-- 
Anders

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature