Code synthesis for timed automata: a comparison using case study

There are two available approaches to automatically generate implementation code from timed automata model. The first approacch is implemented and attached to TIMES tool [1]. We will call this approach “TIMES approach”. While the second approach is based on using B-method [2] and its available code generation tool [3]. We will call this approach “B-method approach”. We select the model of the production cell to be used as a case study for the comparison between these two approaches. The same production cell model has been used against both approaches. The B-method approach generates platform independent code [4]. So we select the generated code using TIMES to be platform independent too for the comparison purpose. For the B-method approach, we use the deterministic semantic of timed automata which is used for TIMES code generation as given in [5]. This semantic controls the selection of the next executed function. The using of this deterministic mechanism is generally not needed for the code generated by the B-method approach. But we use it as it is the implemented mechanism for the TIMES approach. So we select to use it for comparison purpose. By running the implementation code generated using the B-method approach, it works fine as far as we run and no property violation could be found. On the other hand the code generated using TIMES approach runs successfully for the first 10 action transitions and then it progresses the time infinitely. This means that the system deadlocked, so it violates the first property of the model. While the first property is to guarantee that the system is deadlock free. This deadlock is due to the mishandling of the committed and urgent states [6]. The introduced comparison gave a result that the approach based on the using of B-method generates a verified code (by mean of simulation) and handles more timed automata features.