OK thank you very much. I found another bug in linking the libgecodeflatzinc. error reference with Flatzinc::parse ... so I must include the files parser.tab.cpp and lexer.yy.cpp in MakeFile.in --> FLATZINCSRC0 = flatzinc.cpp registry.cpp parser.tab.cpp lexer.yy.cpp to link successfully.
Can you fix this bug please ? Thank you very much for your work ^^ You are the best ^^ Best Regards, Mohamed REZGUI 2013/2/26 Guido Tack <[email protected]> > There was a memory leak in flatzinc. It's now fixed in the trunk, I tried > your example and it seems to work fine. > > As Christian said, FlatZinc in the trunk uses a different search heuristic > if you don't specify the search in the model, so the behaviour may still be > slightly different. > > Cheers, > Guido > > On 27/02/2013, at 7:37 AM, Mohamed Rezgui <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I tried also with cmake in 3.7.3 compilation and I have the same thing. > So, in your opinion, is it better to remove some instances in my > benchmarks or to use 3.7.3 version ? > > Best Regards, > Mohamed REZGUI > > 2013/2/26 Christian Schulte <[email protected]> > >> Hi,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I just tried myself and there is indeed a big bug somewhere. It appears >> to be in the flatzinc stuff and not only due to the branching, one can see >> that by the difference in number of nodes explored per second (it looks it >> also has a memory leak of epic proportions and prints random messages on >> the screen). I checked the base Gecode stuff and there everything is fine, >> the trunk is in most cases slightly faster.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> But as said, it’s the trunk ;-)**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Cheers**** >> >> Christian**** >> >> ** ** >> >> --**** >> >> Christian Schulte, www.ict.kth.se/~cschulte/**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Mohamed Rezgui [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:49 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [gecode-users] Problem with rev13418 performances**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Hi Victor,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> thank you, I dit it but no speed up come. As Christian Schulte says : it >> rather the default strategy is bad.**** >> >> I hope the new version (4.0) comes soon ^^.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Thank you for your attention ^^**** >> >> Best regards,**** >> >> Mohamed REZGUI**** >> >> ** ** >> >> 2013/2/26 [email protected] <[email protected]>**** >> >> CMake supports different build types, make sure that you use the Release >> one to enable optimizations and disable asserts and debug info. You can do >> it at configuration time with the following command:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release**** >> >> ** ** >> >> HTH,**** >> >> Victor**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Mohamed Rezgui <[email protected]> >> wrote:**** >> >> OK so I will work with gecode 3.7.3. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> I just compile the revision with cmake and I use gecode 3.7.3 from >> download section of the official website. **** >> >> I will see the flags used in compilation. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Thank you for all ^^**** >> >> Best Regards,**** >> >> Mohamed REZGUI**** >> >> ** ** >> >> 2013/2/26 Christian Schulte <[email protected]>**** >> >> That's what happens when you use the trunk, you should never, because, >> yes, it is the trunk and not a release ;-)**** >> >> **** >> >> The difference is easy to explain though. The instance you have chosen >> does not have a search annotation in it, so Gecode picks some default >> search (which for this type of problems is a desaster anyway). And we just >> changed the default search behavior for the upcoming Gecode 4.**** >> >> **** >> >> But then there is another observation: Did you compile both versions with >> exactly the same flags? I doubt. Please check this.**** >> >> **** >> >> Christian**** >> >> **** >> >> --**** >> >> Christian Schulte, Professor of Computer Science, KTH, >> www.ict.kth.se/~cschulte/**** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Mohamed Rezgui >> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:31 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* [gecode-users] Problem with rev13418 performances**** >> >> **** >> >> Hi, **** >> >> **** >> >> I made benchmark with the attached instance >> (2DLevelPacking_Class5_20_6.fzn) from the minizinc challenges with the >> latest version of gecode revision 13418 in release mode.**** >> >> **** >> >> When I compare performances between this version and the 3.7.3 version of >> gecode, I am so surprised !!!.**** >> >> Gecode 3.7.3 is faster than the latest revision !!!**** >> >> **** >> >> I just use the parameter -s for stats :**** >> >> ---> gecode/bin/fz -s 2DLevelPacking_Class5_20_6.fzn**** >> >> **** >> >> Use of E7-4870 Intel processor**** >> >> **** >> >> Benchmarks with gecode rev13418 :**** >> >> **** >> >> %% runtime: 2594.74 (2594737 ms)**** >> >> %% solvetime: 2594.72 (2594718 ms)**** >> >> %% workers: 1**** >> >> %% type search: bab**** >> >> %% solutions: 1**** >> >> %% objective: 9**** >> >> %% variables: 801**** >> >> %% propagators: 70**** >> >> %% propagations: 22306041**** >> >> %% nodes: 1564742**** >> >> %% failures: 702986**** >> >> %% restarts: 0**** >> >> %% peak depth: 51**** >> >> %% peak memory: 838 KB**** >> >> **** >> >> Benchmarks with gecode 3.7.3 :**** >> >> %% runtime: 32.394 (32394.264 ms)**** >> >> %% solvetime: 32.384 (32384.895 ms)**** >> >> %% workers: 1**** >> >> %% type search: bab**** >> >> %% solutions: 1**** >> >> %% variables: 801**** >> >> %% objective: 9**** >> >> %% propagators: 70**** >> >> %% propagations: 23159635**** >> >> %% nodes: 3114256**** >> >> %% failures: 1557118**** >> >> %% peak depth: 53**** >> >> %% peak memory: 2831 KB**** >> >> **** >> >> Can you help me about that ???**** >> >> Is it better that I work with 3.7.3 version ??? **** >> >> Thank you for your attention.**** >> >> **** >> >> -- >> Best Regards,**** >> >> Mohamed REZGUI**** >> >> ** ** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gecode users mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- >> Cordialement,**** >> >> Mohamed REZGUI**** >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gecode users mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users > > > -- Cordialement, Mohamed REZGUI
_______________________________________________ Gecode users mailing list [email protected] https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users
