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

Fix syntactic implication rule between R/M and U/W.

Browse source 
* doc/tl/tl.tex, src/ltlvisit/simplify.cc: Fix the rule.
* src/ltltest/reduccmp.test, src/ltltest/syntimpl.test:
Add more tests.
This commit is contained in:
Alexandre Duret-Lutz 2012-05-07 15:58:42 +02:00
parent 70e3e2cd04
commit b71eadd8e3
4 changed files with 23 additions and 8 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

14
src/ltlvisit/simplify.cc
View file

@ -235,8 +235,16 @@ namespace spot
bool
implication(const formula* f1, const formula* f2)
{
return (options.synt_impl && syntactic_implication(f1, f2))
|| (options.containment_checks && contained(f1, f2));
trace << "[->] does " << to_string(f1) << " implies "
<< to_string(f2) << " ?" << std::endl;
if ((options.synt_impl && syntactic_implication(f1, f2))
|| (options.containment_checks && contained(f1, f2)))
{
trace << "[->] Yes" << std::endl;
return true;
}
trace << "[->] No" << std::endl;
return false;
}
// Return true if f1 => f2 syntactically
@ -3910,7 +3918,7 @@ namespace spot
else if ((fo == binop::U && (go == binop::R || go == binop::M))
|| (fo == binop::W && go == binop::R))
{
if (syntactic_implication(f1, g1)
if (syntactic_implication(f1, g2)
&& syntactic_implication(f2, g1)
&& syntactic_implication(f2, g2))
return true;