dolfin team mailing list archive

[Johan Hake <hake@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Friday 23 January 2009 14:02:31 kent-and@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:33 PM,  <kent-and@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:40:21PM +0100, Johan Hake wrote:
> >>>> On Friday 23 January 2009 12:15:51 Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> >>>> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Johan Hake <hake@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> > > On Friday 23 January 2009 11:54:50 Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> >>>> > >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Johan Hake <hake@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> > >> > On Friday 23 January 2009 11:27:31 Ola Skavhaug wrote:
> >>>> > >> >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Johan Hake <hake@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> > >> >> > On Friday 23 January 2009 10:09:12 Martin Sandve Alnæs
> >>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> > >> >> > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Johannes Ring
> >>>> > >> >> > > <johannr@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> > >> >> >
> >>>> > >> >> > wrote:
> >>>> > >> >> > > > On Thu, January 22, 2009 19:10, Johan Hake wrote:
> >>>> > >> >> > > >> On Thursday 22 January 2009 17:02:41 A Navaei wrote:
> >>>> > >> >> > > >>> Johan,
> >>>> > >> >> > > >>>
> >>>> > >> >> > > >>> Thanks, instant-clean did the trick! Maybe this should
> >>>>
> >>>> be
> >>>>
> >>>> > >> >> > > >>> somehow automated.
> >>>> > >> >> > > >>
> >>>> > >> >> > > >> Yes, I have thought about it.
> >>>> > >> >> > > >>
> >>>> > >> >> > > >> Is it possible to add a call to instant-clean in the
> >>>>
> >>>> install
> >>>>
> >>>> > >> >> > > >> script of the ffc
> >>>> > >> >> > > >> and dolfin packages Johannes?
> >>>> > >> >> > > >
> >>>> > >> >> > > > Yes, it is possible to add post installation scripts to
> >>>>
> >>>> the FFC
> >>>>
> >>>> > >> >> > > > and DOLFIN packages (and perhaps Instant) that runs
> >>>> > >> >> > > > instant-clean. Should I add this?
> >>>> > >> >> > > >
> >>>> > >> >> > > > Johannes
> >>>> > >> >> > >
> >>>> > >> >> > > Can you add it to SyFi as well please? But we don't want
> >>>>
> >>>> this in
> >>>>
> >>>> > >> >> > > development versions though, we should at least have an
> >>>>
> >>>> option
> >>>>
> >>>> > >> >> > > to avoid it.
> >>>> > >> >> >
> >>>> > >> >> > I think it will be sufficient to add the automatic cleaning
> >>>>
> >>>> in
> >>>> the
> >>>>
> >>>> > >> >> > ubuntu scripts.
> >>>> > >> >> >
> >>>> > >> >> > I can add the swig version to the signature generation in
> >>>>
> >>>> ffc
> >>>> and
> >>>>
> >>>> > >> >> > dolfin.
> >>>> > >> >> >
> >>>> > >> >> > While on the topic, does instant check whether swig is
> >>>>
> >>>> installed,
> >>>>
> >>>> > >> >> > when a module is built? Also I have on several occasions now
> >>>> > >> >> > checked for the swig version. Should I put this code in
> >>>>
> >>>> instant,
> >>>>
> >>>> > >> >> > e.g.
> >>>> > >> >> >
> >>>> > >> >> >   check_swig_version("1.3.35")
> >>>> > >> >> >
> >>>> > >> >> > It will return false if the current swig version is lesser
> >>>>
> >>>> than
> >>>>
> >>>> > >> >> > "1.3.35"? I think it would be natural for instant to provide
> >>>>
> >>>> such a
> >>>>
> >>>> > >> >> > function.
> >>>> > >> >>
> >>>> > >> >> There is a related problem that needs to be adressed here. If
> >>>>
> >>>> you
> >>>>
> >>>> > >> >> build an extension of a module wrapped with version x of swig,
> >>>>
> >>>> you
> >>>>
> >>>> > >> >> should require the same version of swig in instant. Perhaps
> >>>>
> >>>> the
> >>>>
> >>>> > >> >> check_swig_version("1.3.35") should only return true if you
> >>>>
> >>>> have
> >>>>
> >>>> > >> >> exactly that version. Another function, a-la
> >>>> > >> >>
> >>>> > >> >> assert_swig_min_version("1.3.35")
> >>>> > >> >
> >>>> > >> > This could probably be kept in one function. By default the
> >>>>
> >>>> function
> >>>>
> >>>> > >> > returns whether a version of swig is equal or greater than the
> >>>> > >> > prescribed version, and:
> >>>> > >> >
> >>>> > >> >   check_swig_version("1.3.35", equal = True)
> >>>> > >> >
> >>>> > >> > will return true only if the version is the same as the
> >>>>
> >>>> prescribed
> >>>>
> >>>> > >> > one?
> >>>> > >> >
> >>>> > >> > The assertion functionality will then be handled by the
> >>>>
> >>>> function
> >>>> that
> >>>>
> >>>> > >> > use instant, i.e., ffc, sfc, dolfin compile_function a.s.o.
> >>>> > >>
> >>>> > >> But FFC isn't compiled with SWIG. Dolfin will have to do that,
> >>>>
> >>>> for
> >>>>
> >>>> > >> example at import time.
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > No, but it produces code that is compiled with swig. And this code
> >>>>
> >>>> should
> >>>>
> >>>> > > be compiled with the same swig version that dolfin is compiled
> >>>>
> >>>> with.
> >>>> Then
> >>>>
> >>>> > > dolfin need to hand its swig version to ffc when it is using it so
> >>>>
> >>>> ffc
> >>>>
> >>>> > > can check which version is installed while swigging compiled
> >>>>
> >>>> forms.
> >>>> If
> >>>>
> >>>> > > this version is not the same as the handed version from dolfin ->
> >>>>
> >>>> raise
> >>>>
> >>>> > > error.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > In my opinion,
> >>>> >
> >>>> >   dolfin gets its swig version
> >>>> >   dolfin calls instant to check whether it's compatible with the
> >>>>
> >>>> current
> >>>>
> >>>> > swig
> >>>> >
> >>>> > is simpler than
> >>>> >
> >>>> >   dolfin gets its swig version
> >>>> >   dolfin passes its swig version to ffc
> >>>> >   ffc calls instant to check whether it's compatible with the
> >>>>
> >>>> current
> >>>> swig
> >>>>
> >>>> > why pass the info to ffc at all? It would need to be handled in
> >>>>
> >>>> dolfin
> >>>>
> >>>> > for function compilation anyway. If dolfin checks that the current
> >>>> > swig is compatible with the version it was compiled with at import
> >>>> > time, it doesn't have to be checked anywhere else. With your model,
> >>>> > both DOLFIN, FFC and SFC would need to be modified.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sounds reasonable. Dolfin defines it own jit function and the check
> >>>> could be
> >>>> added here.
> >>>>
> >>>> We will still have the problem for older forms, which are allready in
> >>>> the
> >>>> cache and are compiled with an older swig. Putting the swig version in
> >>>> the
> >>>> signature would prevent this to happen though.
> >>>>
> >>>> Johan
> >>>
> >>> I think we should throw as much as possible into the signature, just
> >>> to make sure. DOLFIN passes some signature prefix to the form compiler
> >>> (which could be the DOLFIN version and the SWIG version), then the
> >>> form compiler adds whatever it feels to add to the signature (form
> >>> signature, form compiler name and form compiler version), then Instant
> >>> adds whatever it feels like adding.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Anders
> >>
> >> Ok, so Instant should add Swig version to the signature. Dolfin and the
> >
> > No, as Johan pointed out, Instant can't add to the signature. Instant
> > will either construct its own signature from the files and options it
> > gets, or use the provided signature as-is. So the form compilers
> > should add whatever they need to the signature.
> >
> > Martin
>
> But the form compilers / Dolfin do not know which SWIG version Instant
> will use
> (although this might not be a big issue since it is probably basically the
> same process
> that decides on which SWIG to use in both cases).

The form compiler/dolfin can get the present swig version (instant can provide 
a function swig_version()?), which will be used to compile a signature.

> Anyway, this is really independent of Dolfin and the compilers. What
> should Instant
> do eg. if SWIG has been updated since the last time it inlined the exact
> same code?

I think Instant should just do what it is told to. Any checks need to be done 
in the caller of instant.

> Should it just import the module or regenerate it?

Then ffc/dolfin will provide a different signature and a new module will be 
compiled.

Johan