Actually its quite complicated. I'm currently debugging and have 60 constraints written on paper that have this effect. Two of them are actually not reified constraints but directly using IntView::lq(constant)
I can give you a description where it happens in my system, but it will be a mess for you to write simplified code that reproduces this. Actually given two spaces original1 and original2 that are equal, variables are constraint like this: posx(6)=[0..185] posx(5)=[0..190] posx(4)=[0..142] posx(3)=[0..158] posx(2)=[0..113] posx(1)=[0..157] all reified constraints are posted with free boolean variables, using linear(*this, intArgs, intVarArgs, r,0,b_[boolvar],ICL_DEF); Now i set the boolean variables accordingly, always doing propagation (calling status()) after each single posting To original1 false ((-1 $* posx(3))+posx(1))$<=0 To original1 false ( 10+(-1 $* posx(6))+posx(5))$>0 To original1 false ( 58+(-1 $* posx(5))+posx(4))$>0 To original1 true posx(6)<=69 // this is no reified constraint, but just posted IntView(posx(6)).lq(69) To original1 false ( 43+(-1 $* posx(6))+posx(1))$>0 To original1 false ((-1 $* posx(5))+posx(2))$<=0 To original1 true ((-1 $* posx(1))+posx(3))$<=0 To original1 true ((-1 $* posx(4))+posx(3))$<=0 To original1 false ( 42+(-1 $* posx(5))+posx(3))$>0 To original1 false ( 42+(-1 $* posx(6))+posx(3))$>0 To original1 true ( -42+(-1 $* posx(3))+posx(1))$<0 To original1 true ( -15+(-1 $* posx(6))+posx(1))$<0 To original1 true ( 58+(-1 $* posx(1))+posx(4))$>0 To original1 true ( 42+(-1 $* posx(1))+posx(3))$>0 To original1 false ((-1 $* posx(1))+posx(2))$<=0 To original1 true ((-1 $* posx(6))+posx(1))$<=0 To original1 true ((-1 $* posx(5))+posx(1))$<=0 To original1 true ( -10+(-1 $* posx(5))+posx(1))$<0 To original1 true ((-1 $* posx(2))+posx(1))$<=0 To original1 false ( 43+(-1 $* posx(2))+posx(1))$>0 To original1 true ( -28+(-1 $* posx(1))+posx(6))$>0 To original1 false ( 28+(-1 $* posx(6))+posx(1))$>0 To original1 false ( -43+(-1 $* posx(1))+posx(2))$<0 To original1 true ( -58+(-1 $* posx(4))+posx(1))$<0 To original1 true posx(1)<=29 // this is no reified constraint, but just posted IntView(posx(1)).lq(29) To original1 false ((-1 $* posx(1))+posx(4))$<=0 // lets call this constraint X Now this space is failed. Something similar with the second space, but posting nr. 5 is different. To original2 false ((-1 $* posx(3))+posx(1))$<=0 To original2 false ( 10+(-1 $* posx(6))+posx(5))$>0 To original2 false ( 58+(-1 $* posx(5))+posx(4))$>0 To original2 false ((-1 $* posx(1))+posx(4))$<=0 // this is constraint X, it is now posted on this position, no longer as the last constraint anymore To original2 true posx(6)<=69 // this is no reified constraint, but just posted IntView(posx(6)).lq(69) To original2 false ( 43+(-1 $* posx(6))+posx(1))$>0 To original2 false ((-1 $* posx(5))+posx(2))$<=0 To original2 true ((-1 $* posx(1))+posx(3))$<=0 To original2 true ((-1 $* posx(4))+posx(3))$<=0 To original2 false ( 42+(-1 $* posx(5))+posx(3))$>0 To original2 false ( 42+(-1 $* posx(6))+posx(3))$>0 To original2 true ( -42+(-1 $* posx(3))+posx(1))$<0 To original2 true ( -15+(-1 $* posx(6))+posx(1))$<0 To original2 true ( 58+(-1 $* posx(1))+posx(4))$>0 To original2 true ( 42+(-1 $* posx(1))+posx(3))$>0 To original2 false ((-1 $* posx(1))+posx(2))$<=0 To original2 true ((-1 $* posx(6))+posx(1))$<=0 To original2 true ((-1 $* posx(5))+posx(1))$<=0 To original2 true ( -10+(-1 $* posx(5))+posx(1))$<0 To original2 true ((-1 $* posx(2))+posx(1))$<=0 To original2 false ( 43+(-1 $* posx(2))+posx(1))$>0 To original2 true ( -28+(-1 $* posx(1))+posx(6))$>0 To original2 false ( 28+(-1 $* posx(6))+posx(1))$>0 To original2 false ( -43+(-1 $* posx(1))+posx(2))$<0 To original2 true ( -58+(-1 $* posx(4))+posx(1))$<0 To original2 true posx(1)<=29 // this is no reified constraint, but just posted IntView(posx(1)).lq(29) This Space is not failed I know this is quite a huge blob of data and you probably wont have the time to reconstruct it. I will just have to adjust my code that this can happen. BTW: Can you confirm that this is due to the use of IntView::lq ? I never experienced this without them. Best, Max On 08/23/2012 12:40 PM, Guido Tack wrote: > I guess under certain conditions the code that posts the constraints (not the > actual propagator) can be stronger than ICL_DEF, in which case this can > happen. > If it's not too complicated, could you send us a concrete example? > > Cheers, > Guido > >
_______________________________________________ Gecode users mailing list users@gecode.org https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users
