ffc team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 01:46:19PM +0200, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
> Quoting Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:26:40AM +0200, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
> > > Quoting Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > >
> > > > I tried to use the new UFL function estimate_max_polynomial_degree
> > > > but the results seem to be incorrect for quadrature representation.
> > > > (Or the references are wrong which I doubt.)
> > > >
> > > > Kristian, can you take a look at this?
> > > >
> > > > Try running the test in simple_verify_tensors. It reports the
> > > > following errors:
> > > >
> > > > FunctionOperatorsBilinearForm_cell_integral_0:      *** (diff = 0.010098)
> > > > MassBilinearForm_cell_integral_0:                   *** (diff = 1e-09)
> > > > NeumannProblemLinearForm_cell_integral_0:           *** (diff =
> > 0.0029685)
> > > > NeumannProblemLinearForm_exterior_facet_integral_0: *** (diff = 0.00292)
> > > > OptimizationBilinearForm_cell_integral_0:           *** (diff = 2.19169)
> > > > PoissonDGBilinearForm_interior_facet_integral_0:    *** (diff = 0.3504)
> > > > PoissonSystemLinearForm_cell_integral_0:            *** (diff =
> > 0.0029685)
> > > > QuadratureElementBilinearForm_cell_integral_0:      *** (diff = 0.249892)
> > > > QuadratureElementLinearForm_cell_integral_0:        *** (diff = 0.10106)
> > > > StokesLinearForm_cell_integral_0:                   *** (diff =
> > 0.00140453)
> > >
> > > This should be fixed now such that we only get the expected differences.
> > >
> > > Kristian
> >
> > Garth, can you check that the example you had works now?
> >
> > Then we can go ahead and remove the old stuff.
> 
> Once this has been confirmed and *.form removed, we should generate new
> references using the *.ufl forms such that the last differences disappear.

Yes!

-- 
Anders

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature