ffc team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 06:46:35PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> 
> 
> Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 06:38:47PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >>
> >> Anders Logg wrote:
> >>> 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?
> >>>
> >> The debugging output that I was looking at has changed (a day or two ago 
> >> 'dx(0, .... degree) was printed to the screen). If the current debug 
> >> line 'q = XX' is the polynomial order of the form, then for the tests 
> >> that I made it is working correctlt.
> > 
> > Yes, that's the polynomial degree. I left it in there while debugging.
> > The debugging output will be cleaned up as well.
> > 
> >>> Then we can go ahead and remove the old stuff.
> > 
> > I inperpret this as everything set for starting to break compatibility
> > with the old .form format.
> > 
> >> Very good. Remember that the option '-O' should be used in combination 
> >> with the quadrature representation (which is the default representation).
> > 
> > What do you mean? Should optimization be enabled by default?
> >
> 
> Probably, but we need to be able to turn it off (or control certain 
> types of optimisations seperately) since it can be slow for complicated 
> forms.
> 
> Garth

ok. If it is potentially very slow then it sounds like it should not
be enabled by default. But we can enable it when compiling the demos
in DOLFIN.

-- 
Anders

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature