This issue tracker is closed. Please visit UPPAAL issue tracker at Github instead.

Bug 106 - Using constant arrrays as parameter to templetes gives faulty behavior
Summary: Using constant arrrays as parameter to templetes gives faulty behavior
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: UPPAAL
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Engine (show other bugs)
Version: 3.4.6
Hardware: PC All
: P2 normal
Assignee: Gerd Behrmann
URL:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-09-08 12:58 CEST by Jacob Illum
Modified: 2005-06-29 21:25 CEST (History)
0 users

See Also:
Architecture:


Attachments
The system that causes problems (1.00 KB, application/xml)
2004-09-08 13:02 CEST, Jacob Illum
Details
The system that causes problems (1.00 KB, application/xml)
2004-09-08 13:02 CEST, Jacob Illum
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jacob Illum 2004-09-08 12:58:13 CEST
When a constant array is given a an input parameter to a template, then testing
the value of this array is unreliable, i.e. a boolean array can be matched
against neither true nor false.

Furthermore, if a variable is added to the system the behavior changes, even if
the variable is not used in any component.

See the attached system for detail:
Here P takes a constant array as an input parameter. A process is created with
P({true,false}). The initial state of P is A, here there is a single transition
to the state B. In B we have two transition back to A depending on whether the
value of the first entry of the array is true or false. However, the simulator
claims the system is deadlocked. When adding a global variable i and not using
it in P, the behavior changes. Now, a transition is available in B, however, it
is the wrong one.
Comment 1 Jacob Illum 2004-09-08 13:02:01 CEST
Created attachment 23 [details]
The system that causes problems
Comment 2 Jacob Illum 2004-09-08 13:02:41 CEST
Created attachment 24 [details]
The system that causes problems
Comment 3 Gerd Behrmann 2004-09-10 15:38:49 CEST
A fix for 3.4 has been checked into CVS. I still need to check the development
branch.
Comment 4 Gerd Behrmann 2004-09-11 10:45:45 CEST
I checked the development branch. The bug is not present there, but the test
case triggered another problem. A fix for that problem has also been checked
into CVS now.