[PATCH] Enable more FieldStencil testing

[Jeffrey D. Oldham]

Richard Guenther wrote:

> Jeffrey D. Oldham wrote:
>
>> Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>>> Although FieldStencil is quite unusable ATM (doesn't work with 
>>> expressions as arguments), with this patch we enable some additional 
>>> testing.  test4 cannot be enabled due to the mentioned problem (we 
>>> cannot default-construct expression engines, but FieldEngine 
>>> requires this all over the place).
>>>
>>> Ok?
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2004Jul19  Richard Guenther <richard.guenther at uni-tuebingen.de>
>>>
>>>     * src/Field/tests/ExpressionTest.cpp: convert Stencil to
>>>     FieldStencil, enable test3.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you want any more tests turned on in the nightly regression testing?
>
>
> No, the test is already running, the offending lines are just commented.
>
>> See also comments below.
>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>
>>>
>>> Index: ExpressionTest.cpp
>>> ===================================================================
>>> RCS file: 
>>> /home/pooma/Repository/r2/src/Field/tests/ExpressionTest.cpp,v
>>> retrieving revision 1.2
>>> diff -u -u -r1.2 ExpressionTest.cpp
>>> --- ExpressionTest.cpp    25 Dec 2003 11:26:04 -0000    1.2
>>> +++ ExpressionTest.cpp    19 Jul 2004 15:42:57 -0000
>>> @@ -222,11 +222,26 @@
>>>   tester.check(checkTest(tester, test, a2, a4));
>>> }
>>>
>>> -class TwoPt
>>> +template <int Dim>
>>> +struct TwoPt
>>> {
>>> -public:
>>> +  typedef double OutputElement_t;
>>>   TwoPt() { }
>>> -  TwoPt(const TwoPt &) { }
>>> +  TwoPt(const TwoPt &m) : inputCentering_m(m.inputCentering_m) { }
>>> +  template <class FE>
>>> +  TwoPt(const FE& fe)
>>> +  {
>>> +    inputCentering_m = fe.centering();
>>> +  }
>>> +
>>> +  Centering<Dim> outputCentering() const
>>> +  {
>>> +    return inputCentering_m;
>>> +  }
>>> +  Centering<Dim> inputCentering() const
>>> +  {
>>> +    return inputCentering_m;
>>> +  }
>>>
>>>   template <class A>
>>>   inline
>>> @@ -239,9 +254,17 @@
>>>   inline int lowerExtent(int) const { return 1; }
>>>   inline int upperExtent(int) const { return 0; }
>>>
>>> -private:
>>> +  Centering<Dim> inputCentering_m;
>>>  
>>>
>> Do we really want this member to be public, not private or protected?
>
>
> Just for convenience, otherwise we'd need an accessor in the copy 
> constructor.  I don't see any point in enforcing access checking in 
> stencil objects anyway.
>
>>> };
>>>
>>> +template <class M, class T, class E, class Dom>
>>> +typename FieldStencilSimple<TwoPt<M::dimensions>, typename 
>>> View1<Field<M,T,E>, Dom>::Type_t >::Type_t
>>> +twoPt(const Field<M,T,E>& expr, const Dom &domain)
>>> +{
>>> +  typedef FieldStencilSimple<TwoPt<M::dimensions>, typename 
>>> View1<Field<M,T,E>, Dom>::Type_t > Ret_t;
>>> +  return Ret_t::make(TwoPt<M::dimensions>(expr), expr(domain));
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> template<class A1,class A2,class A3,class A4, class AInit>
>>> void test3(Pooma::Tester& tester, int test,
>>>        const A1 &a1, const A2 &a2, const A3 &a3, const A4 &a4,
>>> @@ -255,8 +278,6 @@
>>>   int to = I.last();
>>>   int i;
>>>
>>> -  Stencil<TwoPt> twoPt;
>>>  
>>>
>> How can you remove 'twoPt', which is used?
>
>
> See above - I added a global function twoPt which does all the magic. 
> Like divVertToCell and friends are.  It seems to be the way to use 
> FieldStencilSimple.
>
>>> -
>>>   a1 = initial;
>>>   a2 = initial;
>>>   a3 = initial;
>>> @@ -289,8 +310,6 @@
>>>   int to = I.last();
>>>   int i;
>>>
>>> -  Stencil<TwoPt> twoPt;
>>> -
>>>   a1 = initial;
>>>   a2 = initial;
>>>   a3 = initial;
>>> @@ -421,8 +440,8 @@
>>>   //  test2(tester, 2, a1, a2, a3, a4, initial, cellInterior);
>>>
>>>   // Need to replace the stencil code above with Field Stencil code.
>>> -  //  test3(tester, 3, a1, a2, a3, a4, initial, cellInterior);
>>> -  //  test4(tester, 4, a1, a2, a3, a4, initial, cellInterior);
>>> +  test3(tester, 3, a1, a2, a3, a4, initial, cellInterior);
>>> +  //test4(tester, 4, a1, a2, a3, a4, initial, cellInterior);
>>>
>>>   typedef     Field<UniformRectilinearMesh<1>, double, 
>>> MultiPatch<UniformTag,
>>> @@ -444,8 +463,8 @@
>>>
>>>   test1(tester, 1, ca1, ca2, ca3, ca4, cinit, cellInterior);
>>>   //  test2(tester, 2, ca1, ca2, ca3, ca4, cinit, cellInterior);
>>> -  //  test3(tester, 3, ca1, ca2, ca3, ca4, cinit, cellInterior);
>>> -  //  test4(tester, 4, ca1, ca2, ca3, ca4, cinit, cellInterior);
>>> +  test3(tester, 3, ca1, ca2, ca3, ca4, cinit, cellInterior);
>>> +  //test4(tester, 4, ca1, ca2, ca3, ca4, cinit, cellInterior);
>>>
>>>
>>>   int ret = tester.results("ExpressionTest");
>>
Ah.  I now understand.  Yes, for a stencil object, access control is not 
terribly important.  I also see the twoPt function listed.  The patch 
looks good.  Tomorrow, we'll check that it still passes.

-- 
Jeffrey D. Oldham
oldham at codesourcery.com