Sundials issues with ode15

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Sundials issues with ode15

Sebastian Schöps
Dear all,

is anyone able to compile octave devel with a recent version of sundials
(>=3.0.0)?
It seems ida_dense.h which is included by "__ode15__.cc" is gone.

Sebastian



--
Sent from: http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-Maintainers-f1638794.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sundials issues with ode15

siko1056
Sebastian Schöps wrote
> Dear all,
>
> is anyone able to compile octave devel with a recent version of sundials
> (>=3.0.0)?
> It seems ida_dense.h which is included by "__ode15__.cc" is gone.
>
> Sebastian

Confirmed for "devel"-branch building with openSUSE 42.3 and SUNDIALS 3.1.0
(same with 3.0.0):

   __ode15__.cc:340:24: error: ‘IDADlsSetDenseJacFn’ was not declared in
this scope

In the idas_guide.pdf [1] there is written in "Changes in v2.0.0":

> Added  generic SUNMATRIX module  with three provided implementations:
> dense, banded and sparse.
> These replicate previous SUNDIALS Dls and Sls matrix structures in a
> single object-oriented API.

Thus I assume SUNDIALS 2.7.0 (2016-09-26) is the last working version for
the current implementation in Octave.

Best,
Kai

[1] https://computation.llnl.gov/sites/default/files/public/idas_guide.pdf




--
Sent from: http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-Maintainers-f1638794.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sundials issues with ode15

Carlo de Falco-2

> On 21 Nov 2017, at 14:48, siko1056 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> In the idas_guide.pdf [1] there is written in "Changes in v2.0.0":
>
>> Added  generic SUNMATRIX module  with three provided implementations:
>> dense, banded and sparse.
>> These replicate previous SUNDIALS Dls and Sls matrix structures in a
>> single object-oriented API.
>
> Thus I assume SUNDIALS 2.7.0 (2016-09-26) is the last working version for
> the current implementation in Octave.


It doesn't seem too difficult to update __ode15__.cc to use the new API,
but it can be quite cumbersome to try and maintain both versions ...

Shall we support only the latest version of sundials? Can someone post
this issue to the tracker so we can continue the discussion there?

c.




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sundials issues with ode15

Sebastian Schöps
Carlo de Falco-2 wrote
> It doesn't seem too difficult to update __ode15__.cc to use the new API,
> but it can be quite cumbersome to try and maintain both versions ...
>
> Shall we support only the latest version of sundials?

I would support moving forward and just support >=3.0. It will take some
time until octave dev will be released, so more time for people to update
their installations.


Carlo de Falco-2 wrote
> Can someone post this issue to the tracker so we can continue the
> discussion there?

ok, I've done it: https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?52475

Sebastian



--
Sent from: http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-Maintainers-f1638794.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sundials issues with ode15

Juan Pablo Carbajal-2
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Sebastian Schöps <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Carlo de Falco-2 wrote
>> It doesn't seem too difficult to update __ode15__.cc to use the new API,
>> but it can be quite cumbersome to try and maintain both versions ...
>>
>> Shall we support only the latest version of sundials?

I would say this is a bad idea unless you account for the lag most
popular distributions update their sundials.
In Ubuntu, for example, octave package would be delayed just because
sundials doesn't update so fast
https://packages.ubuntu.com/artful/libsundials-serial

If you want to have the latest octave distributed with popular linux
distributions you will have to package sundials with it?? (either as
source code or link it statically).
I think if user-pool is important (I think it should) this is not the
proper way to go.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sundials issues with ode15

Carlo de Falco-2

> On 22 Nov 2017, at 10:25, Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Sebastian Schöps <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Carlo de Falco-2 wrote
>>> It doesn't seem too difficult to update __ode15__.cc to use the new API,
>>> but it can be quite cumbersome to try and maintain both versions ...
>>>
>>> Shall we support only the latest version of sundials?
>
> I would say this is a bad idea unless you account for the lag most
> popular distributions update their sundials.
> In Ubuntu, for example, octave package would be delayed just because
> sundials doesn't update so fast
> https://packages.ubuntu.com/artful/libsundials-serial
>
> If you want to have the latest octave distributed with popular linux
> distributions you will have to package sundials with it?? (either as
> source code or link it statically).
> I think if user-pool is important (I think it should) this is not the
> proper way to go.
>

I think this depends a lot on how far away in the future the Octave 4.4 release
is, the 4.2 branch does not use sundials.

c.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sundials issues with ode15

Juan Pablo Carbajal-2
> I think this depends a lot on how far away in the future the Octave 4.4 release
> is, the 4.2 branch does not use sundials.
>
> c.
My point is that not only depends on that, but on the lag of popular
distributions to update sundials. For example, ubuntu uses sundials
2.5.0 since Trusty, released on 17 April 2014 and Artful released in
19 October 2017, there have been 5 new releases of sundials in this
period of time. The next release, bionic, will have 2.7.0 on it.

Therefore I think a more than reasonable question is when will the
most proper distributions move to latest sundials? How does that
schedule match octave's?
I think it is quite cumbersome to keep track of this.

I guess one solution would be to keep octave to the latest sundials
and revive the odepkg package.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sundials issues with ode15

Carlo de Falco-2

> On 22 Nov 2017, at 11:07, Juan Pablo Carbajal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I think this depends a lot on how far away in the future the Octave 4.4 release
>> is, the 4.2 branch does not use sundials.
>>
>> c.
> My point is that not only depends on that, but on the lag of popular
> distributions to update sundials. For example, ubuntu uses sundials
> 2.5.0 since Trusty, released on 17 April 2014 and Artful released in
> 19 October 2017, there have been 5 new releases of sundials in this
> period of time. The next release, bionic, will have 2.7.0 on it.
>
> Therefore I think a more than reasonable question is when will the
> most proper distributions move to latest sundials? How does that
> schedule match octave's?
> I think it is quite cumbersome to keep track of this.
>
> I guess one solution would be to keep octave to the latest sundials

That's not the only possible point of view.
Probably there is not much demand for SUNDIALS itself in
ubuntu which justifies the slow update of the package
but having an optional dependence on sundials 3.0 in Octave
can motivate the downstream packagers to upgrade sundials when
Octave 4.4 is released.

That will definetily not happen in any of the distributions you
mentioned above as they will not include Octave 4.4 which is not
released yet.

> and revive the odepkg package.

I agree we are in need of a release of odepkg, but
ode15{s,c} have never been in odepkg and will never be
so this is seems an unrelated topic to me.

c.




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sundials issues with ode15

Sebastian Schöps
Dear Carlo, dear Francesco,

> Carlo de Falco-2 wrote
>> It doesn't seem too difficult to update __ode15__.cc to use the new API,
>> but it can be quite cumbersome to try and maintain both versions ...

Is anyone of you looking into this? This incompatibility is rather annoying. I could try having a look but it's quite an effort as I would have to start from scratch.

Sebastian


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sundials issues with ode15

Francesco Faccio


2017-11-27 23:19 GMT+01:00 Sebastian Schöps <[hidden email]>:
Dear Carlo, dear Francesco,

> Carlo de Falco-2 wrote
>> It doesn't seem too difficult to update __ode15__.cc to use the new API,
>> but it can be quite cumbersome to try and maintain both versions ...

Is anyone of you looking into this? This incompatibility is rather annoying. I could try having a look but it's quite an effort as I would have to start from scratch.

Sebastian


Dear Sebastian,

this weekend I will have a look into this.

Thank you,

Francesco
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sundials issues with ode15

Francesco Faccio


2017-11-30 22:31 GMT+01:00 Francesco Faccio <[hidden email]>:


2017-11-27 23:19 GMT+01:00 Sebastian Schöps <[hidden email]>:
Dear Carlo, dear Francesco,

> Carlo de Falco-2 wrote
>> It doesn't seem too difficult to update __ode15__.cc to use the new API,
>> but it can be quite cumbersome to try and maintain both versions ...

Is anyone of you looking into this? This incompatibility is rather annoying. I could try having a look but it's quite an effort as I would have to start from scratch.

Sebastian


Dear Sebastian,

this weekend I will have a look into this.

Thank you,

Francesco
I looked into the code and I have to think about how to re-design the functions in __ode15__.cc in order to make it compatible with Sundials 3.1.0. 
I have some real life problems, so it will take a while for me to fix it. If someone would like to help me I will appreciate it.

Francesco