[MITgcm-devel] [MITgcm-cvs] MITgcm/pkg/exf CVS Commit

[Gael Forget]

> I continue to cc mitgcm-devel since the new conditions you put might
> cause problems to some users.
yep. I had forgotten to hit reply all.


> And regarding this:
>> Can you revert the logic of these checks as they were before (keeping the
>> ALLOW_ATM_WIND <-> useAtmWind substitution, like the check-in message
>> description).
> If you prefer to let me do it, I will do it.
Done. Obviously that broke the run time switch approach (via useAtmWind) 
I had put in place and use in ecco version 4. My undertstanding
is that you had a plan for fixing that situtation. So what is next? 

Gael



> 
> Cheers,
> Jean-Michel
> 
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 11:22:50PM -0400, Gael Forget wrote:
>> Hi Jean Michel,
>> thanks for the summary fix. If I recall correctly, removing the 
>> ALLOW_ATM_WIND condition to the empty file name test, and replacing 
>> it with the useAtmWind condition, falls under this part of the cvs message :
>> 	ALLOW_ATM_WIND now just sets the useAtmWind default (see
>> 	exf_readparms.F) and force defines ALLOW_BULKFORMULAE (EXF_OPTIONS.h).
>> I suppose I could have expanded that message further, and mention the 
>> checks specifically. The point of the revision was to be able to use the same executable 
>> with stress or wind, which I typically needed for the llc90 verification experiment.
>> I am not sure how the new check logic is wrong, but it is if I read correctly your message. 
>> By the way, I thought you felt like pkg/exf had excessive CPP switches, and should rely
>> on such run time switches instead. I thought that this change was a step in that direction.
>> Cheers,
>> Gael
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 20, 2012, at 9:33 PM, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Gael,
>>> 
>>> I fixed exf_summary.F (printing ustress,vstress parameters) 
>>> which was wrong after this Aug 28 modification.
>>> 
>>> But I have an other issue:
>>> You did changed exf_check.F much more than this check-in message describe:
>>> before there was a stop if uwind file or vwind file was not empty 
>>> but ALLOW_ATM_WIND not defined (+ similar check ustress,vstress).
>>> But now there is a stop if uwind file or vwind file is empty
>>> but useAtmWind=T (+ similar check for ustress,vstress).
>>> 
>>> Can you revert the logic of these checks as they were before (keeping the 
>>> ALLOW_ATM_WIND <-> useAtmWind substitution, like the check-in message
>>> description).
>>> 
>>> And if you think that these checks need to be changed, please explain
>>> why and what needs to be changed (on the devel list) before changing the code.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jean-Michel
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:17:46PM -0400, Gael Forget wrote:
>>>> Update of /u/gcmpack/MITgcm/pkg/exf
>>>> In directory baudelaire:/srv/scratch/gforget/MITgcm/pkg/exf
>>>> 
>>>> Modified Files:
>>>> 	EXF_PARAM.h exf_ad_check_lev1_dir.h exf_ad_dump.F 
>>>> 	exf_adjoint_snapshots__g.F exf_adjoint_snapshots_ad.F 
>>>> 	exf_bulkformulae.F exf_check.F exf_check_range.F 
>>>> 	exf_diagnostics_fill.F exf_getffields.F exf_getforcing.F 
>>>> 	exf_getsurfacefluxes.F exf_init.F exf_init_fixed.F 
>>>> 	exf_monitor.F exf_monitor_ad.F exf_readparms.F exf_summary.F 
>>>> 	exf_wind.F 
>>>> Log Message:
>>>> 
>>>> - pkg/exf : added run time switch useAtmWind to replace ALLOW_ATM_WIND       
>>>> cpp switch. ALLOW_ATM_WIND now just sets the useAtmWind default (see 
>>>> exf_readparms.F) and force defines ALLOW_BULKFORMULAE (EXF_OPTIONS.h).
>>>> - pkg/exf, autodiff, ctrl, ecco and seaice : remove ALLOW_ATM_WIND
>>>> brackets, or replace them with useAtmWind ones.
>>>> - pkg/ctrl, ecco : allow to compile both ALLOW_U/VSTRESS_CONTROL and 
>>>> ALLOW_U/VWIND_CONTROL. Depending on useAtmWind, one is inactive, 
>>>> and the other is active (see exf_getffields.F/exf_getsurfacefluxes.F).
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> MITgcm-cvs mailing list
>>>> MITgcm-cvs at mitgcm.org
>>>> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-cvs
>>