dolfin team mailing list archive

[Johannes Ring <johannr@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Garth N. Wells <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 03/02/11 17:42, Johannes Ring wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Johan Hake <johan.hake@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday February 2 2011 07:57:10 Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>>> On 02/02/11 15:46, Johan Hake wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday February 2 2011 02:31:02 Johannes Ring wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 11:35:28PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 01/02/11 23:19, Johan Hake wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday February 1 2011 15:14:21 Anders Logg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:12:05PM -0800, Johan Hake wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday February 1 2011 14:53:55 Anders Logg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Something seems to go wrong with the Hierarchical Python wrappers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> C++ program:
>>>>>>>>>>>>   UnitSquare mesh(3, 3);
>>>>>>>>>>>>   mesh._debug();
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Output:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Debugging hierarchical object.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   has_parent()    = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>   _parent.get()   = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>   _parent.count() = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>   has_child()     = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>   _child.get()    = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>   _child.count()  = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Debugging hierarchical object.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   has_parent()    = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>   _parent.get()   = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>   _parent.count() = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>   has_child()     = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>   _child.get()    = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>   _child.count()  = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Python program:
>>>>>>>>>>>>   mesh = UnitSquare(3, 3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>   mesh._debug()
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Debugging hierarchical object.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   has_parent()    = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>   _parent.get()   = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>   _parent.count() = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>   has_child()     = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>   _child.get()    = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>   _child.count()  = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Debugging hierarchical object.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   has_parent()    = 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>   _parent.get()   = cbd47290
>>>>>>>>>>>>   _parent.count() = -878438560
>>>>>>>>>>>>   has_child()     = 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>   _child.get()    = cbd47290
>>>>>>>>>>>>   _child.count()  = -878438560
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The first call to Hierarchical::_debug is made from the
>>>>>>>>>>>> constructor of Hierarchical and is correct in both C++ and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Python, but then the Python object seems to lose contact with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes quite so...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I changed locally to swig 2.0 and the problem went away. shared_ptr
>>>>>>>>>>> support has been rewritten in 2.0. I might be able to hack the
>>>>>>>>>>> interface of Hierarchical in a similar manner as I did for
>>>>>>>>>>> Variables. Just implementing the interface again in the C++ layer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But I am not sure. The shared_ptr part of the SWIG interface starts
>>>>>>>>>>> to be quite complex now with supporting SWIG version 1.3.37 to
>>>>>>>>>>> 1.3.40 and 2.0
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should force SWIG 2.0?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is that possible? It's not in Ubuntu yet, or is it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's in 11.04
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Swig is super easy to install.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we can include SWIG installation in Dorsal and Johannes is able to
>>>>>>> make packages that rely on SWIG 2.0 then we might as well move to 2.0
>>>>>>> to save us (mainly Johan) a lot of trouble.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried to build UFC and DOLFIN in Debian unstable with the swig2.0
>>>>>> package (same package as in Ubuntu 11.04). One problem is that this
>>>>>> package does not contain /usr/bin/swig but only /usr/bin/swig2.0. I
>>>>>> fixed this by setting -DSWIG_EXECUTABLE:FILEPATH=/usr/bin/swig2.0 when
>>>>>> building UFC and DOLFIN, but running the poisson Python demo failed
>>>>>> because Instant was unable to find swig. The reason for naming the
>>>>>> binary "swig2.0" is probably that SWIG 1.3 is still the default in
>>>>>> Debian (and Ubuntu).
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok then it might be difficult. We could maybe add some funcitonality to
>>>>> instant to define what executable it shold look for?
>>>>
>>>> We should definitely have that - DOLFIN should be able to pass the Swig
>>>> executable name and path. I've already seen that having two versions of
>>>> Swig installed is problematic.
>>>
>>> Ok, then we need some hierachical setting of what swig excecutable it should
>>> look for. As I am compiling swig from source, which gives me a plain 'swig'
>>> excecutable I would not like DOLFIN to use this and not swig2.0.
>>>
>>> I can see if I can implement this. We can add something like:
>>>
>>>  parameters["jit_compilation"]["swig_executable"] = "swig2.0"
>>>  parameters["jit_compilation"]["swig_version"] = "2.0.0"
>>>
>>> If swig2.0 is not found we look for swig. I think we can do this from dolfin
>>> (using instant). When we have found the correct swig executable we cache it
>>> and use it when we call instant.
>>>
>>> I am not sure how setting the path will work. If we include it I think it
>>> should be optional. So that just looking in the path after the excecutable
>>> should be the default option.
>>
>> FYI: I just thought of another problem with moving to SWIG 2.0. The
>> Trilinos package in Debian and Ubuntu is not built with SWIG 2.0. This
>> means that I must build the DOLFIN package without support for
>> Trilinos.
>>
>
> I wouldn't bother about this - the Debian/Ubuntu PETSc and Trilinos
> packages are not great.

What are the problems with these packages?

> Also, Trilinos 10.8 will require Swig 2.0.

OK.

Johannes