You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Describe the bug
I have an array of clocks where I, on a location, want to specify rates for the clocks using forall and imply.
The invariant is on the form (forall (id : task_t) id != active imply worked[id]' == 0).
Here, worked is the array of clocks.
When the engine loads the model it results in a segmentation fault.
I guess the issue is that imply is actually a disjunction in disguise, which is not allowed to be combined with clock expressions, but you found a way to trigger it anyway.
Can you use the following instead?
forall (id : task_t)
worked[id]' == (id == active)
This is just a workaround, and at this point I am not sure if implication can be used to manipulate the derivatives conditionally. If we allow it, it's very easy to mess up with multiple derivative definitions and checking for that is going to be non-trivial/expensive, so it's likely to be fixed with an error message that implication is not allowed in the invariant, just like disjunctions over clocks expressions are not allowed.
Describe the bug
I have an array of clocks where I, on a location, want to specify rates for the clocks using
forall
andimply
.The invariant is on the form
(forall (id : task_t) id != active imply worked[id]' == 0)
.Here,
worked
is the array of clocks.When the engine loads the model it results in a segmentation fault.
To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
verifyta
.Expected behavior
That all clocks but one have a rate of 0.
Version(s) of UPPAAL tested
UPPAAL 5.0.0 (rev. 714BA9DB36F49691), 2023-06-21
Desktop (please complete the following information):
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: