On 2013-10-16 20:17, Anders Logg wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:00:08PM +0100, Chris Richardson wrote:
On 16/10/2013 09:25, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>Does anyone have an opinion on keeping or removing CGAL from DOLFIN?
>Below are some pros and cons:
>
>- CGAL makes DOLFIN slow to build and builds use a lot of memory.
>- CGAL is unpredictable in throwing errors (predictable in that it
>will throw cryptic errors, unpredictable when or with which compiler).
>- CGAL is difficult to understand and the latest version has very
>cryptic interface changes.
>- Almost all of the random DOLFIN buildbot failures are due to CGAL
>mesh generation failures.
>
>+ CGAL provides mesh generation for a variety of simple shape
>combinations (the DOLFIN interface to CGAL is not rich enough for
>anything serious).
Agreed. Anyone serious will make their mesh independently, so CGAL
is really just an annoying toy in this context... (!)
That may be true, but simple also has a use.
It's an optional dependency, so why is it a big problem?
(a) the tests keep failing randomly; (b) it breaks with GCC 4.8; and (c)
updating to CGAL 3.4 is a cryptic mess.
Garth
--
Anders
_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
[email protected]
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
[email protected]
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
