dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:35:50PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
>
> Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 08:38:08AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >>
> >> Anders Logg wrote:
> >>> What shape are we in currently for making a new release next week?
> >> FFC/FIAT/UFL should have some more testing time before a release given
> >> all the changes.
> >
> > Yes, ideally we should have more time but we don't. We can't move the
> > Debian import freeze and I think it would be good to get the latest
> > release in there.
> >
> > It all depends on whether we finish testing on time. We will have
> > quite massive testing (unit and regression tests) to back up the new
> > release.
> >
> >>> I've been locked up in FFC/UFL for the last month so I'm not fully
> >>> up to speed.
> >>>
> >>> One thing I'm not completely happy with is
> >>>
> >>>   const Array<const double>& x
> >>>
> >>> It would look better if we could somehow manage to have
> >>>
> >>>   const Array<double>& x
> >>>
> >>> Would that be possible to fix?
> >>>
> >> We can't fix it properly. We looked at it some time ago. The reason is
> >> that Array does not necessarily own the data, unlike a std::vector. We
> >> therefore need
> >>
> >>   const Array<const foo> bar
> >>
> >> when wrapping const pointers.
> >
> > Would it help if we let data.x own its values and then copy the values
> > into data.x instead of
> >
> >   this->x.update(ufc_cell.geometric_dimension, x);
> >
> > inside Data::set. It might be slower potentially, but I doubt it will
> > matter.
> >
>
> I think that it would, but the need to copy is unfortunate.

Yes, but I would say less unfortunate than the extra const.

--
Anders


> Garth
>
>
> > It would make the interface more intuitive. As it is now, we force an
> > extra const that looks strange.
> >
> >>> What needs to happen before ca next Wednesday is to fix any remaining
> >>> issues in DOLFIN (how many?) and FFC (quite a few) and then make new
> >>> releases of
> >>>
> >>>   DOLFIN (0.9.6)
> >>>   FFC (0.9.0)
> >>>   UFL (0.5.0)
> >>>   FIAT (0.4.0?)
> >>>   UFC (1.2.1)
> >>>
> >>> Anything else?
> >>>
> >> There was an update to Viper recently.
> >
> > You mean the LUT thing? It wouldn't hurt, but I'm not sure how
> > important that is.
> >
>
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature