On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 04:05:23PM +0200, Kristian Ølgaard wrote:
> On 24 May 2011 15:24, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 02:56:26PM +0200, Kristian Ølgaard wrote:
> >
> >> > +\editornote{Explain what \emp{FE0} etc. mean in
> >> > Figure~\ref{oelgaard-2:fig:O_simplify_code}!}
> >>
> >> There is no FE0 in that code extract.
> >> Furthermore, in the text we write:
> >
> > Yes, there is, lots of them:
>
> Those are FE0_D10 and FE0_D01....
>
> > A[j*3 + k] += (FE0_D10[0][j]*FE0_D10[0][k]*I[0] +\
> > FE0_D10[0][j]*FE0_D01[0][k]*I[1] +\
> > FE0_D01[0][j]*FE0_D10[0][k]*I[1] +\
> > FE0_D01[0][j]*FE0_D01[0][k]*I[2]);
> >
> >> ... in Figure~\ref{oelgaard-2:fig:O_simplify_code}, where again
> >> only code different from that in
> >> Figure~\ref{oelgaard-2:fig:standard_code} has been included.
> >>
> >> Any symbols in the code which has not already been accounted for in
> >> the 'standard_code' is explained in the text following
> >> the 'simplify_code'.
> >
> > "FE" only appears in the above code extract, nowhere else.
>
> That's embarrassing, after actually reading the text I see that you are right.
> I believe the text is OK if I change FE0_D* to Psi_vu_D* in the code
> which follows the notation in all other code extracts?
Sounds good. Will you send a patch?
--
Anders
> >> > +\editornote{Very hard to read legends and axes in
> >> > Figure~\label{oelgaard-2:fig:laplace_stats_2}, please fix!}
> >>
> >> Does this apply to both 'stats' figures?
> >
> > Only one of them for some reason. It comes out as a blur in the
> > printer. Anyway, we will be changing some margins in the book etc and
> > will have reason to double-check all figures so don't worry about this
> > now.
>
> Strange, I didn't notice anything funny on my printer but I haven't
> printed it lately so I don't know.
> OK, let's wait and see then.
>
> >> > +\editornote{Mismatch between
> >> > Figure~\ref{fig:oelgaard-2:fig:hyper_stats_2} and text which claims that
> >> > \emp{-basis -zeros} is the best option.}
> >>
> >> This has been fixed a long time ago!
> >
> > Indeed. I've removed the comment now.
> >
> >> I hope this doesn't mean that some of the other errors have been
> >> reintroduced in the merge!
> >
> > No, I'm applying everything manually from a printed copy of the book.
>
> OK, good.
>
> Kristian
>
> >
> >
> >> Kristian
> >>
> >> > Comparing the number of flops involved to compute the element tensor
> >> > to the weighted Laplace example, it is clear that this problem is
> >> > considerably more complex. The \ffc{} compile times in
> >> > Table~\ref{oelgaard-2:tab:hyper_stats_1} show that the \emp{-simplify}
> >> > optimization, as anticipated, is the most expensive to perform. The
> >> > g++ compile times for all test cases were in the range two to six
> >> > -seconds for all optimization options. A point to note is that scope
> >> > -for reducing the flop count is considerably greater for this problem
> >> > -than for the weighted Laplace problem, with a difference in the number
> >> > -of flops spanning several orders of magnitude between the different
> >> > +seconds for all optimization options. A point to note is that the
> >> > +scope for reducing the flop count is considerably greater for this
> >> > +problem than for the weighted Laplace problem, with a difference in
> >> > +the number of flops spanning several orders of magnitude between the
> >> > +different
> >> > \ffc{} optimizations. This compares to a difference in flops of
> >> > roughly a factor two between the non-optimized and the most effective
> >> > optimization strategy for the weighted Laplace problem. In the case
> >> > @@ -714,7 +720,7 @@
> >> > this effect becomes less pronounced. Another point to note, in
> >> > connection with the g++ optimizations, is that switching on additional
> >> > optimizations beyond \emp{-O2} does not seem to provide any further
> >> > -improvements in run time. For the hyperelasticity example, the option
> >> > +improvements in run-time. For the hyperelasticity example, the option
> >> > \emp{-zeros} has a positive effect on the performance, not only when
> >> > used alone but in particular when combined with the other \ffc{}
> >> > optimizations. This is in contrast with the weighted Laplace
> >> > @@ -769,8 +775,8 @@
> >> > The test and trial functions are denoted by $v, u \in V_{h}$, with
> >> >
> >> > \begin{equation}
> >> > - V_{h} = \bracc{v \in \brac{H^{1}\brac{\Omega}}^2: \ v\vert_T \in
> >> > - \brac{P_{q}\brac{T}}^2 \foralls T \in \mathcal{T}}
> >> > + V_{h} = \bracc{v \in [H^{1}\brac{\Omega}]^2: \ v\vert_T \in
> >> > + [P_{q}\brac{T}]^2 \foralls T \in \mathcal{T}}
> >> > \label{oelgaard-2:eq:elastictity_H1_vector_space}
> >> > \end{equation}
> >> > %
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics-authors
> >> Post to : [email protected]
> >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics-authors
> >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics-authors
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics-authors
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
