Skip to content
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

Issue1058 #116

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from
Closed

Issue1058 #116

wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

silvansievers
Copy link

No description provided.

@@ -20,7 +21,7 @@ LimitedPruning::LimitedPruning(const Options &opts)
void LimitedPruning::initialize(const shared_ptr<AbstractTask> &task) {
PruningMethod::initialize(task);
pruning_method->initialize(task);
utils::g_log << "pruning method: limited" << endl;
log << "pruning method: limited" << endl;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We probably don't want to print this in silent mode?

void NullPruningMethod::initialize(const shared_ptr<AbstractTask> &task) {
PruningMethod::initialize(task);
utils::g_log << "pruning method: none" << endl;
log << "pruning method: none" << endl;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

and here

atom_selection_strategy(opts.get<AtomSelectionStrategy>("atom_selection_strategy")) {
}

void StubbornSetsAtomCentric::initialize(const shared_ptr<AbstractTask> &task) {
StubbornSets::initialize(task);
utils::g_log << "pruning method: atom-centric stubborn sets" << endl;
log << "pruning method: atom-centric stubborn sets" << endl;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

and here

@@ -122,7 +126,7 @@ void StubbornSetsEC::initialize(const shared_ptr<AbstractTask> &task) {
disabled.resize(num_operators);
disabled_computed.resize(num_operators, false);

utils::g_log << "pruning method: stubborn sets ec" << endl;
log << "pruning method: stubborn sets ec" << endl;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

and here

void StubbornSetsSimple::initialize(const shared_ptr<AbstractTask> &task) {
StubbornSets::initialize(task);
interference_relation.resize(num_operators);
interference_relation_computed.resize(num_operators, false);
utils::g_log << "pruning method: stubborn sets simple" << endl;
log << "pruning method: stubborn sets simple" << endl;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

and here

/*
We only measure time with verbose verbosity level because time
measurements induce a significant overhead, up to 30% for configurations
like blind search. See issue1042 and issue1058.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Perhaps add "with the NullPruning method" after "like blind search"?

class PruningMethod {
utils::Timer timer;
friend class limited_pruning::LimitedPruning;

virtual void prune(
const State &state, std::vector<OperatorID> &op_ids) = 0;
protected:
mutable utils::LogProxy log;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I assume this does have to be mutable? It's not pretty.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, unfortunately, because output streams are modified when used.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we think it is OK to do output on const logs, it would probably be good to encapsulate this inside the LogProxy class. But that's something for another issue then.

@silvansievers silvansievers deleted the issue1058 branch July 15, 2022 12:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
2 participants