-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 43
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Constant variable substitution, loop unroll pass + dpor code cleanup #202
Merged
Merged
Changes from 8 commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
1acb884
remove unnecessary changes
csanadtelbisz d7331d5
Merge branch 'xcfa-refactor' into por/dpor
csanadtelbisz 2ffb9fd
Merge branch 'xcfa-refactor' into por/dpor
csanadtelbisz 0671562
Merge branch 'xcfa-refactor' into por/dpor
csanadtelbisz 3ed48a0
merging devs from por/benchmarking
csanadtelbisz 1064119
Merge branch 'xcfa-refactor' into por/dpor
csanadtelbisz 996494a
copyright + code formatting
csanadtelbisz 2c863d7
code formatting
csanadtelbisz 4556bc8
removed ArgNode comparison simplification
csanadtelbisz File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why was this change necessary? How come this used to be so complicated, and now an ID equivalence is enough?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, I have no idea why this was so complicated beforehand. I can see no reason for the ID equivalence check being an incorrect way of determining the equivalence of ArgNodes as long as IDs are unique (if we compare ArgNodes from different ARGs, it may be wrong; though I do not see such a use case). On the other hand, the former complicated way resulted in a depth-first ARG search from the given ArgNode (cf. line 284 in the old version comparing
outEdges
and line 33 comparing the targets of ArgEdges).(We had a conversation about this issue on the 15th of June; also with @AdamZsofi).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Based on git blame, you are the author of the original equivalence check, so you may have the reasons for implementing equivalence check this way.
e9defab (fixed link)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see, I've made these changes in e9defab. The reason for them was that even if you fully re-build an ARG from a model a second time, due to mismatched IDs, the two ARG's comparison would fail. I think that with this simplified version, the problem would reappear, and we'd have some problems with ARG comparisons, e.g., in the progress check of @AdamZsofi. Of course we can mitigate it some other way, I don't think it's acceptable that a DFS search should run at every ArgNode comparison.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's move this topic to our next in-person meeting. I think we will need to come up with a solution that neither breaks existing functionality nor does it place such a burden on performance.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(also, @AdamZsofi: some tests would be nice, so that similar changes are reflected in the CT pipeline's success!)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I omit this change from this PR but I have created the issue #203 about ArgNode comparison.