[MITgcm-devel] seaice velocity mask

[Martin Losch]

Gael, Patrick,

may I revive my April-Fools-Day email question about a to-be-introduced CPP flag ALLOW_SEAICE_RHSMASK? If you think it's a good idea, I can do this (I guess the benefits are mainly for the adjoint).

Martin

On Apr 1, 2010, at 2:54 PM, Martin Losch wrote:

> Gael,
> 
> I just went back and checked, that I actually had seaiceMaskU/V
> initialised in seaice_init_fixed.F (Revision 1.4), but Patrick removed
> this part (Revision 1.5), probably, because they are re-initialised in
> seaice_ini_varia.F (maybe because it's easier to taf to recognize
> dependencies?).
> 
> I suggest, that we add a flag ALLOW_SEAICE_MASKRHS (undefined by
> default) that is put ifdefs around the update of seaiceMaskU/V in
> seaice_dynsolver.F and also in seaice_ini_varia.F and re-introduce the
> initialisation of the fields into seaice_ini_fixed.F. Will that have
> negative consequences for the adjoint?
> 
> After this works I guess that these fields need not be stored anymore
> (except when ALLOW_SEAICE_MASKRHS is defined) and these directives can
> be either removed (with a warning when both ALLOW_TAMC_AUTODIFF and
> ALLOW_SEAICE_MASKRHS are defined) or also put between #ifdef
> ALLOW_SEAICE_MASKRHS.
> 
> What do you think? and what does Patrick think about this?
> 
> Martin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel