-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
[BUG/ISSUE] Potential bug in beuler.f90 #129
Copy link
Copy link
Closed
Labels
bugSomething isn't workingSomething isn't workingintegratorsRelated to numerical integratorsRelated to numerical integrators
Milestone
Description
@RolfSander @jimmielin: I've been looking at using the Backwards Euler integrator but I think I might have stumbled upon a bug in int/beuler.f90.
Backward Euler is implemented as an option in the SDIRK integrator. But there is a separate integrator file int/beuler.f90, which is basically a copy of int/sdirk.f90. In the int/sdirk.f90 we have the selection of method based on the value of ICNTRL(3):
!~~~> ICNTRL(3) - method selection
SELECT CASE (ICNTRL(3))
CASE (0,1)
CALL Sdirk2a
CASE (2)
CALL Sdirk2b
CASE (3)
CALL Sdirk3a
CASE (4)
CALL Sdirk4a
CASE (5)
CALL Sdirk4b
CASE (6)
CALL BEuler
CASE DEFAULT
CALL Sdirk2a
END SELECTBut we also have this same CASE statement in int/beuler.f90. I would have thought we would want to only have the CALL BEuler routine there and skip calling the other Sdirk* routines.
If you agree, I can open a PR to fix this so that we only call the BEuler routine to set the proper coefficients for the integration.
Reactions are currently unavailable
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
bugSomething isn't workingSomething isn't workingintegratorsRelated to numerical integratorsRelated to numerical integrators