[firedrake] possible lazy evaluation issue?

[Andrew McRae]

One way is by environment variable: export PYOP2_LAZY=0

I don't know if there's a parameters[...] setting.

On 15 July 2015 at 20:27, Cotter, Colin J <colin.cotter at imperial.ac.uk>
wrote:

>  I don't know how to turn off lazy. I see that the problem also goes away
> if I call it on u0 twice...
>
> cheers
> --cjc
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* firedrake-bounces at imperial.ac.uk [firedrake-bounces at imperial.ac.uk]
> on behalf of Andrew McRae [a.mcrae12 at imperial.ac.uk]
> *Sent:* 15 July 2015 20:19
> *To:* firedrake
> *Subject:* Re: [firedrake] possible lazy evaluation issue?
>
>   Low-hanging fruit:
>
> Does it go away if you turn off lazy?
>
>  What happens if you call it on u0 twice in succession (with and without
> lazy, I guess), do things change?
>
> On 15 July 2015 at 20:16, Cotter, Colin J <colin.cotter at imperial.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>     Dear Firedrakers,
>>    I encountered some spooky behaviour when doing some things with
>> handtooled kernels. It's in the following code:
>> https://gist.github.com/colinjcotter/85106d0f11e2f7c93ede
>>
>>  Sorry that there is so much. The point is that the function limit_slope
>> (which does several things including executing some handtooled kernels) is
>> (I claim) idempotent, however, on line 217, I call it on u0, then assign u0
>> to u1 in line 218. Then I call limit_slope on u1 in line 219. If I comment
>> out line 219, I get different behaviour, in particular the bounds that are
>> printed out go above 1.0 and below 0.0 on occasion.
>>
>>  It seems like the assign is occurring before some of the kernels (or
>> perhaps the final project) are executed in limit_slope.
>>
>>  Any thoughts?
>>
>>  cheers
>>  --cjc
>>
>> --
>>  http://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/colin.cotter
>>
>> www.cambridge.org/9781107663916
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed