dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:48:41AM -0800, Johan Hake wrote:
> On Thursday March 10 2011 10:39:19 Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:29:46AM -0800, Johan Hake wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > It should now be possible to set the swig binary and the path seperatly
> > > in the
> > >
> > > Python interface of DOLFIN. I have added two new parameters which defaults
> to:
> > >   parameters["swig_binary"] = "swig"
> > >   parameters["swig_path"] = ""
> > >
> > > If the binary name is in the PATH, just use the "swig_binary" parameter
> > > but if you have you own obscure place for it set the path too.
> > >
> > > Please test it...
> > >
> > > We also need to figure out how to patch the release of DOLFIN to be
> > > included in Debian, as we then envision to use swig2.0 as binary. Should
> > > this be altered in globalparameters.py where it is added, or into a
> > > seperate global_parameter_file.xml which is handed together with the
> > > distribution.
> > >
> > > I also wondered if we should flesh out the JIT releated parameters from
> > > FFC into its own dictionary. Now they polute the generated code for no
> > > reason.
> >
> > How do you mean?
>
> Now all parameters in the FFC parameters dict are included with their values
> in the generated .h/.cpp files. As this part has noting to do with JIT
> compilation, it is not nessesary to include these in the actuall generated
> code.

Why not? Those were the parameters used to generate the code.

> However they need to be included in the signature string, when JIT compiling
> of course. I might envision something like
>
>   parameters
>   jit_parameters
>
> where the parameters controlls the generation of code and jit_parameters
> controlls the generation of swig module and the compilation flags of the code.

Yes, but I don't see the problem of also including them in the
generated code. When compiling from the command-line, it's nice to be
able to look at the code to see which parameters were used. Why should
we have a special option to not include the parameters when called
from a JIT compiler?

--
Anders