ffc team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 01:46:21PM +0200, Johan Hake wrote:
> On Monday 17 August 2009 13:23:16 Anders Logg wrote:
> > Fixed. I've set the log level to INFO in the JIT compiler, and then do
> > push_level(WARNING) before calling the code generation, then
> > pop_level.
>
> Nice, but I wonder if this is a hack more than a fix ;)
>
> It circumvent the whole log system, by forcing the log level to be at a
> certain level, without possibility for the user to control it. Now I cannot
> get rid of the message by altering the log level. We should at least use
> option["log_level"] when the setting the log level for jit_form.
>
> My fix lets the begin message be level conscious, and then we have to change
> all info("") call in the sub routines of analyze_form to debug("").
>
> I have done some work in this direction already. I can hand a patch if this is
> what we want.
>
> Johan

I guess the problem is that what is considered as normal output when
running from the command-line is verbose when running in JIT mode.

So what is normally printed on the INFO level should be moved to the
DEBUG level, but only when running in JIT mode. I don't know how to do
this, but changing the log level has much the same effect.

How about this:

  set_level(options["log_level"])

  info("Calling FFC JIT compiler...")

  push_level(min(WARNING, options["log_level"] + 10))

  compile()

  pop_level()

  info("Done")

--
Anders


>
>
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:57:47PM +0200, Johan Hake wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > I want to get back the nice
> > >
> > >   "Calling FFC just-in-time (JIT) compiler, this may take some time..."
> > >
> > > message when jit compiling a form. I see that when I add a
> > >
> > >   set_log_level(INFO)
> > >
> > > in jit_form I get a bunch of uninteresting information:
> > >
> > > Compiler stage 1: Analyzing form
> > > --------------------------------
> > >
> > > Compiler stage 2: Computing form representation(s)
> > > --------------------------------------------------
> > >   Computing quadrature representation.
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > After some research I found out that this comes from the begin(), end()
> > > statements in ffc.analyze_form. As it is now begin just uses info when it
> > > present the information.
> > >
> > > Could we let begin take a level, like:
> > >
> > >   begin(DEBUG,"Compiler stage 1: Analyzing form")
> > >
> > > or if this is too verbose, provide a set_begin_level, which the begin
> > > function could use. With alternative 1 we have:
> > >
> > >   begin(DEBUG,"Compiler stage 1: Analyzing form")
> > >   debug("Jada")
> > >   debug("Bada")
> > >   end()
> > >
> > >   begin(DEBUG,"Compiler stage 2: Computing form representation(s)")
> > >   debug("Jada")
> > >   debug("Bada")
> > >   end()
> > >
> > >   ...
> > >
> > > and with alternative 2 we have:
> > >
> > >   set_begin_level(DEBUG)
> > >   begin("Compiler stage 1: Analyzing form")
> > >   debug("Jada")
> > >   debug("Bada")
> > >   end()
> > >
> > >   begin("Compiler stage 2: Computing form representation(s)")
> > >   debug("Jada")
> > >   debug("Bada")
> > >   end()
> > >
> > >
> > > I go for alternative 1.
> > >
> > > Johan
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > FFC-dev mailing list
> > > FFC-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/ffc-dev

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature