wrong calculation of the number of variables and equations

[Lennart Ochel]

OpenModelica counts only 8 equations and 10 variables for the following model:

model test
  record R
    Integer d;
    Integer dummy;
  end R;

  parameter Integer N = 3;
  Boolean b[N] = {true,false,true};
  R d[N];
  Integer n;
algorithm 
  n := 0;
  for i in 1:N loop
    if b[i] then
      n := 1 + n;
      d[n].d := i;
      d[n].dummy := 0;
    else
    
    end if;
  end for;
end test;

It should count 10 equations and 10 variables.

[Lennart Ochel]

The algorithm get counted as 5 equations. That is wrong.

Equations (2, 8)
========================================
1/1 (3): b = {true, false, true}
2/4 (5): algorithm
  n := 0;
  for i in 1:N loop
    if b[i] then
      n := 1 + n;
      d[n].d := i;
      d[n].dummy := 0;
    end if;
  end for;

[Lennart Ochel]

The five counted outputs of the algorithm are

1. n
2. d[n].d.d
3. d[n].dummy.d
4. d[n].d.dummy
5. d[n].dummy.dummy

However, I would expect something like

1. n
2. d[1].d
3. d[1].dummy
4. d[2].d
5. d[2].dummy
6. d[3].d
7. d[3].dummy

[Lennart Ochel]

In the meantime the equations get count in a different way, but still wrong:

Check of test completed successfully.


Class test has 6 equation(s) and 10 variable(s).
3 of these are trivial equation(s).

[Lennart Ochel]

This is a blocker and should get fixed soon. There is still no response after almost one year. Adrian, can you push this a bit. Maybe you know better who need to be included.

[Adrian Pop]

Check model does wrong counting as far as i know.
The back-end does its own counting which is correct, maybe we should use that.
As far as I know the check model counting part was implemented by Jens.

[Lennart Ochel]

The back end counts the algorithm as three outputs. That is the same as for the front end.

[Adrian Pop]

I don't get it. Is it a specification question? We don't know how to count it?
Or somebody needs to implement it correctly?

[Lennart Ochel]

Somebody needs to implement it correctly.

[Adrian Pop]

Ok. We'll take it up in the next OSMC dev meeting on Monday and see who can do it.

[Mahder Alemseged Gebremedhin]

I think this is now fixed in r22581.

Just to be sure though:
Lennart how many equations do you expect from the algorithm section for this model (/simulation/modelica/arrays/BooleanArray2.mos)

model Bug2112
  Boolean b[3];
equation 
 for i in 2:3 loop
   b[i] = time>0.1+i/10;
  end for;

algorithm 
  b[1] := false;
  for i in 2:3 loop
   b[1] := b[1] or change(b[i]);
  end for;
end Bug2112;

It was counted 5 equations (3 from algorithm section) and was accepted as correct. Dymola also counts 5 equations.

The way I interpreted the spec it should be only 1 equation/output from the algorithm section (only b[1] is output) and two from equation section. So the model is balanced with 3 equations and vars.

What do you think?

[Lennart Ochel]

Great. The counting for algorithms seem to be correct. Now this model stuck in the code generation. Who can take care of that issue?

Regarding #2112: I think 5 equations is the correct counting. Adrian, what do you think?

[Martin Sjölund]

5 equations is correct. The specification says this:

model Test // wrong Modelica model (has 4 equations for 2 unknowns)
  Real x[2](start={-11, -22});
algorithm
  // conceptually: x = {1,-22}
  x[1] := 1;
algorithm
  // conceptually: x = {-11,2}
  x[2] := 2;
end Test;

[Mahder Alemseged Gebremedhin]

Replying to sjoelund.se:

5 equations is correct. The specification says this: ...

Okay found this example now. It is on 3.2 rev 2 only :). Missing from spec 3.3.

Anyway treating a whole array as a "variable" will simplify things for us. The way it is now we consider the whole array only if we can not tell which specific members are used.

I will update the fix to not check if the subs are known and all that stuff and just take the whole array.

[Lennart Ochel]

Replying to mahge930:

I will update the fix to not check if the subs are known and all that stuff and just take the whole array.

Just for algorithms, right?

[Martin Sjölund]

Replying to mahge930:

Okay found this example now. It is on 3.2 rev 2 only :). Missing from spec 3.3.

Use spec 3.3 rev 1. Spec 3.3 is ancient :)

[Mahder Alemseged Gebremedhin]

Replying to lochel:

Replying to mahge930:

I will update the fix to not check if the subs are known and all that stuff and just take the whole array.

Just for algorithms, right?

Ya, of course. Don't worry, this won't affect equation sections in any way :)

[Lennart Ochel]

Upps. This is still not working properly (e.g., simulation/modelica/arrays/BooleanArray2.mos).

[Mahder Alemseged Gebremedhin]

Fixed in r22689.
We needed to differentiate between

model test
  record R
    Integer d;
  end R;
  R r[2];
algorithm 
  r[1].d := 0;
algorithm 
  r[2].d := 0;
end test;

which is unbalanced according to the spec and

model test
  model R
    Integer d;
  algorithm
    d := 0;
  end R;
  R r[2];
end test;

which is balanced.
because as far as the back-end was concerned the second model looked like

 algorithm
   r[1].d := 0;
 algorithm
   r[2].d := 0;

However in this case the outputs should not be considered as the whole array in each section.