Opened 15 years ago
Closed 13 years ago
#562 closed Bug (fixed)
lbc_blk sign for ua_e, va_e in bdydyn.F90
| Reported by: | dupontf | Owned by: | nemo |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | low | Milestone: | |
| Component: | OCE | Version: | v3.2 |
| Severity: | Keywords: | ||
| Cc: |
Description
In bdydyn.F90, tagged 1559, line 169-170, the sign for northfold operations on ua_e and va_e should be -1.
By the way, the call to lbc_blk there is useless since it is done in dynspg_ts anyway afterwards.
Fred.
Commit History (1)
| Changeset | Author | Time | ChangeLog |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1740 | rblod | 2009-11-19T14:43:56+01:00 | Sign error in bdy, see ticket #562 |
Change History (4)
comment:1 Changed 14 years ago by rblod
comment:2 Changed 14 years ago by dupontf
En effet, mes excuses! I can see what you are refering to in dynnxt. Ho Boy...! It looks rather complex for a simple consistency operation along the bdy. Could it be part of a routine like obcdyn_bt?
F.
comment:3 Changed 14 years ago by rblod
:-), I totally agree on the waste of mpi communication time induced, I put the lbc (with the good sign) in dynnxt as a temporary fix (or so called). All operation on boundary in dynnxt (obc, agrif, bdy) should be externalize to make dynnxt simpler.
comment:4 Changed 13 years ago by rblod
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to closed
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
I agree on the sign. Regarding the suppression, there is a call to bdy_flather in dynnxt which is done after a call to lbc. I didn't look carefully at this, but maybe we should revert the order of calls in dynnxt before suppressing thee lbc in bdy.
Rachid