CFD Online Discussion Forums

CFD Online Discussion Forums (
-   OpenFOAM Installation (
-   -   Debug OpenFOAM-1.6 with Netbeans or GDB? (

alundilong May 7, 2010 01:46

Debug OpenFOAM-1.6 with Netbeans or GDB?
I follow the instructions posted on this official website.

But it does not do anything but broken my solvers.
In detail, when I build the source program, which is located under $HOME/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-1.6/applications/solvers/incompressible/icoFoam,
it posted errors like this,can not find /usr/bin ld. But ld do exist under /usr/bin. Then I try to compile it with wmake command. It also posted error 1.

What's wrong with my debug version of OpenFOAM-1.6?:confused:

As Netbeans is quite familar with VC++, I choose to learn OpenFOAM's codes with this compile tool. Although I am working with GDB currently, I still hope to read those codes with Netbeans.

wyldckat May 7, 2010 16:36

Greetings Edward,

Well, that page about Netbeans is quite old now (last change 31 October 2007). Back then the latest OpenFOAM version was 1.4.1.

If you can drop NetBeans in exchange for Eclipse, you've got a very recent tutorial (last change 6 May 2010) for it here: Howto Use OpenFOAM with Eclipse

Additionally, the support thread for it is this one: Eclipse for OpenFOAM

With Eclipse you can also use GDB, so it should work out nicely for what you need :)

By the way:

I follow the instructions posted on this official website. is an unofficial wiki for OpenFOAM! Says so right in the main page. I'm just pointing it out to you, because OpenFOAM is very well protected legally... and all caution is required when stating what's official or not about OpenFOAM!!

Best regards,

makaveli_lcf January 10, 2012 18:40

Despite it is unofficial wikki, people behind it are qualified and experienced. And there is too much legal protection issues around OpenFOAM(C)(R) IMHO concerning enthusiast (NONCOMMERCIAL) developers trying to help newbies to get used with OF. It would be much better if Programmers Guide would be finally updated without typo errors and misleading information since 2009.

wyldckat January 15, 2012 08:50

Greetings Dr. Alexander,

The programmer's guide seems to be have had (very) small/minor updates for each released version. Nonetheless, there is a bug report that might interest you (and everybody) to give your opinion on it as well:

The other takes on this are:
  • People can always submit bug reports with the lists of flaws, typos and so on about the programmer's guide. Although it doesn't necessarily mean they will be fixed. I think there was such a bug report a few years ago when the bug reporting was still done here on the forum... but I can't remember very well what the outcome/answer was. All I vaguely remember is that it eventually lead to creating the new way of documenting things on the wiki:
  • The main "guilty party" for the "programmers guide" to not being further improved are the usual suspects: "time" and "money". If there was funding or someone approached OpenCFD/SGI with the sentence "I want to work and improve the Programmers Guide", then perhaps something would go forward. ;)

Best regards,

makaveli_lcf January 15, 2012 11:41

Hi Bruno!

Thanx for the link, its is useful for clarifying some of my doubts: "is it possible to "close" documentation for open-source or is it restricted by GPL?". Because I ones asked OpenCFD(R) if it is possible to get Programmer Guide sources and also pointed some mistakes in it. They replied that doc sources are not distributed by them.

I agree, that if OpenCFD/SGI would just simply allow the community to work on the documentation along with them it will be much more up-to-date. But they suppress such an initiative, I cannot understand that.



wyldckat January 15, 2012 13:29

Disclaimer: I don't have specific legal experience about this nor have I confirmed any of this with any lawyers, so my word is only barely as solid as anything that is written on wikipedia ;)

The second page of the programmers guide says this:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
The GFDL is similar to GPL, but not identical. While the GPL indicates that one can both sell the binaries and source code (or modifications of said code), for the same amount for each (e.g.: 50$ for the binaries and another 50$ for the source code... but resulting in 100$ even if you only want the source code), the GDFL doesn't specify the same thing, since source code and documentation are completely separate things. For example, the GFDL specifically says that one may sell copies of the document and also says that one must provide a free and machine-readable format if more than 100 copies are distributed in opaque form (at least by what I understood from reading the license).

Although the "source code" (it's in LaTeX, so it's pretty much all in code ;)) isn't provided, it's still possible to literally copy-paste the whole thing from the PDF file and paste it on the wiki in an editable format. Nonetheless, there are a few details to take into account:
  • Trademark issues, which probably would be averted if the document is fully copied, since the original document already disclaims said trademarks.
  • Take into account and respect all of the specifications made in the GFDL. I didn't read in full detail, but it seemed to me that only translations of invariant sections need copyright holder's permissions before translating... although if the original text is preserved, a translation can be provided as well.
  • Copy-paste and re-format can be a pain to do. I've done this before for another document and it's not a very pleasant experience. The PDF file is provided in a pretty decent format that isn't restricting copying the text. Image extraction can also be easily achieved. So, even without the source code, it's easy to replicate the document.

Other than this, once the content is on the wiki, it's all under the GFDL. Additionally, it sort-of falls under the same criteria as journals and papers: mentioning a trademarked name doesn't imply that one should legally pay anything to the trademark holder. Nonetheless, one has to make it perfectly clear that one does not have any rights over the trademark.

Anyway, the bottom line might be summed up like this: if the OpenFOAM(R) trademark is mentioned in any other book that details how to use OpenFOAM and if the sole intent of the book is to explain on how to use it, then a percentage of the earnings or a previously agreed contract must be defined and met before and after the book is published and sold.

Best regards,

wyldckat January 22, 2012 13:15


Just a minor update: I've browsed a bit more the Programmers Guide and it looks like work has continued to be done on it. At least I've seen tutorials on the second half of the guide that have been updated to OpenFOAM's "#codeStream" way of doing business :D
So I think that reports on the bug tracker about the typos found will not be in vain!

Let me see if I can find the old thread that listed several typos that were found several months ago...

edit: I found it: - :eek: it was you Dr. Alexander who posted that report! I won't post the report on the mantis bug tracker simply because I'm not familiar with these details of OpenFOAM, so I don't know exactly what is wrong and why :(

edit 2: Other threads that might of interest:

Best regards,

makaveli_lcf January 22, 2012 18:15

Hey, Bruno! it was your reply for my post))))

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:25.