alarsyo/spot
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Generalize G,&,| rewritings to deal with event. and univ. terms.

Browse source 
* src/ltlvisit/simplify.cc (ltl_simplifier): Adjust
code.
* src/ltltest/reduccmp.test: Add some test cases.
This commit is contained in:
Alexandre Duret-Lutz 2011-08-23 16:51:02 +02:00
parent ab7a1c7aa9
commit 82b42494db
2 changed files with 115 additions and 26 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

20
src/ltltest/reduccmp.test
View file

@ -101,8 +101,8 @@ for x in ../reduccmp ../reductaustr; do
run 0 $x '(a R b) | (c R b)' '(a | c) R b'
run 0 $x 'Xa & FGb' 'X(a & FGb)'
run 0 $x 'Xa | FGb' 'Xa | FGb' # We'd prefer 'X(a | FGb)'
run 0 $x 'Xa & GFb' 'Xa & GFb' # 'X(a & GFb)'
run 0 $x 'Xa | FGb' 'X(a | FGb)'
run 0 $x 'Xa & GFb' 'X(a & GFb)'
run 0 $x 'Xa | GFb' 'X(a | GFb)'
# The following is not reduced to F(a) & GFb. because
# (1) is does not help the translate the formula into a
@ -111,8 +111,10 @@ for x in ../reduccmp ../reductaustr; do
# (2) ... it would hinder this useful reduction (that helps to
# produce a smaller automaton)
run 0 $x 'F(f1 & GF(f2)) | F(a & GF(b))' 'F((f1&GFf2)|(a&GFb))'
# FIXME: Don't we want the opposite rewriting
run 0 $x 'Fa & GFb' 'Fa & GFb' # We'd prefer 'F(a & GFb)'
# FIXME: Don't we want the opposite rewriting?
# rewriting Fa & GFb as F(a & GFb) seems better, but
# it not clear how that scales to Fa & Fb & GFc...
run 0 $x 'Fa & GFb' 'Fa & GFb'
run 0 $x 'G(a | GFb)' 'Ga | GFb'
# The following is not reduced to F(a & c) & GF(b) for the same
# reason as above.
@ -168,8 +170,16 @@ for x in ../reduccmp ../reductaustr; do
run 0 $x 'Fa|GFc' 'F(a|GFc)'
run 0 $x 'FGa|GFc' 'F(Ga|GFc)'
run 0 $x 'Ga&Xb&FGc' 'Ga & X(b&FGc)'
run 0 $x 'Ga&Xb&GFc' 'G(a&Fc) & Xb'
run 0 $x 'Ga&Xb&GFc' 'Ga & X(b&GFc)'
run 0 $x 'Ga&GFc' 'G(a&Fc)'
run 0 $x 'G(a|b|GFc|GFd|FGe|FGf)' 'G(a|b)|GF(c|d)|F(Ge|Gf)'
run 0 $x 'G(a|b)|GFc|GFd|FGe|FGf' 'G(a|b)|GF(c|d)|F(Ge|Gf)'
run 0 $x 'X(a|b)|GFc|GFd|FGe|FGf' 'X(a|b|GF(c|d)|F(Ge|Gf))'
run 0 $x 'Xa&Xb&GFc&GFd&Ge' 'X(a&b&G(Fc&Fd))&Ge'
# F comes in front when possible...
run 0 $x 'GFc|GFd|FGe|FGf' 'F(GF(c|d)|Ge|Gf)'
run 0 $x 'G(GFc|GFd|FGe|FGf)' 'F(GF(c|d)|Ge|Gf)'
;;
esac