-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 54
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Substitution Tree Variable Bank Refactor #633
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Before this PR variable banks when querying a substitution tree were hard coded, to be the constants
This has been replaced in this PR by adding fields
_queryBank
,_normInternalBank
,_internalBank
to theSubstutionTree
retrieval algorithmsRobUnification
andUnificationWithAbstraction
.Why do we do this? The reason is that we prepare for the ALASCA merge, which involves a ternary inference. In order to implement that efficiently we need to match one clause with 2 substitution trees in sequence. The is only (soundly) possible if we use different
_normInternalBank
and_internalBank
values for both of the queries. Thus we need to make this change.As a further preparation for implementing the trinary inference rule we ad an overload
getUwa(AbstractingUnifier* state, ...)
toLiteralSubstitutionTree
andTermSubstitutionTree
which differs from the old overload that does not contain thestate
argument by starting the unification with a already initialized unifier, instead of a fresh one. Using this functoin we can use multiple substitutiontrees in sequence.As this PR touches some bits of core routines of vampire (i.e. indexing) it would be great if @quickbeam123 could do some regression testing. The changes are not very drastic so I think there shouldn't be a difference in performance but we should be sure anyways. I already did some randomized runs and didn't run into any issues.