Package Details: elmerfem 9.0-1

Git Clone URL: (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: elmerfem
Description: A finite element software for multiphysical problems
Upstream URL:
Keywords: CFD FEM simulation
Licenses: GPL
Conflicts: elmerfem-git
Submitter: saxonbeta
Maintainer: a.kudelin
Last Packager: a.kudelin
Votes: 11
Popularity: 0.002074
First Submitted: 2015-08-18 13:50
Last Updated: 2021-01-27 18:23

Latest Comments

1 2 Next › Last »

phollox commented on 2021-05-12 14:05

Trying to build it. Got this far:

[  3%] Building C object matc/src/CMakeFiles/matc.dir/str.c.o
/home/phollox/.cache/yay/elmerfem/src/elmerfem-release-9.0/matc/src/str.c: In function ‘str_sprintf’:
/home/phollox/.cache/yay/elmerfem/src/elmerfem-release-9.0/matc/src/str.c:85:5: error: format not a string literal and no format arguments [-Werror=format-security]
   85 |     sprintf(str_pstr, fmt);
      |     ^~~~~~~
cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
make[2]: *** [matc/src/CMakeFiles/matc.dir/build.make:328: matc/src/CMakeFiles/matc.dir/str.c.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [CMakeFiles/Makefile2:14490: matc/src/CMakeFiles/matc.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [Makefile:166: all] Error 2
==> ERROR: A failure occurred in build().
error making: elmerfem

Hey, at least is not gfortran complaining....

DarioP commented on 2020-11-06 13:06

In case anyone is wondering if the package builds without intervention, as of today the answer is still no.

a.kudelin commented on 2020-06-07 16:35

@hacksd, you're right, the package cannot be built due to a bug in gcc-fortran. It has already been fixed in the development branch of GCC, and I filed a request to maintainers to apply corresponding patch in archlinux. Suggest to wait a bit, or as a temporary solution you may use a different compiler until packages being fixed.

hacksd commented on 2020-06-04 21:54

But even after that, I faced multiple issues some of which are reported in the GitHub repo. Finally building from source is what worked for me.

The release used by this package, though being latest, can't be built with gfortran 10 so should this package be flagged as out-of-date?

hacksd commented on 2020-06-04 21:50

I tackled that issue with the help of the contributors in this issue. I basically added this sed command in the PKGBUILD before the cmake command:

sed -i -e 's/{CMAKE_Fortran_FLAGS}/{CMAKE_Fortran_FLAGS} -fallow-argument-mismatch/g' ../$pkgname-release-$pkgver/CMakeLists.txt

hacksd commented on 2020-06-03 06:28

Hello, thanks for this package. I am facing this error when trying to build this package:

    [  3%] Building Fortran object mathlibs/src/arpack/CMakeFiles/arpack.dir/cnaitr.f.o

  383 |             call svout (logfil, 1, rnorm, ndigit,
      |                                   2
  666 |             call svout (logfil, 2, rtemp, ndigit,
      |                                   1
Error: Rank mismatch between actual argument at (1) and actual argument at (2) (scalar and rank-1)

Any help is welcome.

a.kudelin commented on 2020-04-28 09:50

@CrocoDuck, hi!
I've added a commented check() section to a PKGBUILD, unfortunately, only 96% of tests are passed at the moment, hopefully I will tackle the rest in the next release. None of tests are failing with SIGSEGV, so I'd recommend you (a) to review compiler flags you're passing while building. It could be done in /etc/makepkg.conf, and (b) to look at dependencies of elmer, maybe some of them are out of date on your PC and this produces errors. Also compiling the package with -g option followed by examination of run with valgrind could help to locate the source of the issue.

CrocoDuck commented on 2020-04-26 14:53

Hi, thank you for providing this package! I am running into some issue with SIGSEGV when I try to run any kind of model, I posted about it on Elmer forums. This is what the Elmer log tells me:

ELMER SOLVER (v 8.4) STARTED AT: 2020/04/25 12:37:40

Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault - invalid memory reference.

Backtrace for this error:
#0  0x7fedb2be8d6f in ???
#1  0x7fedb0df7eb7 in ???
#2  0x7fedb11b960b in ???
#3  0x7fedb330d4f1 in ???
#4  0x7fedb3471660 in ???
#5  0x5606ddf3c40f in ???
#6  0x5606ddf3c13e in ???
#7  0x7fedb2bd4022 in ???
#8  0x5606ddf3c17d in ???
#9  0xffffffffffffffff in ???

I think it might be due to how the package is built. Can you verify if you can reproduce the issue?

Kunda commented on 2019-08-19 15:08

Can someone take over the maintainership of this ?

Kunda commented on 2019-01-05 23:34

please update to 8.4