Spaces
Explore
Communities
Statistics
Reports
Cluster
Status
Help
Compl C Integ Progr 85445 pair #381745843
details
property
value
status
complete
benchmark
t11.c
ran by
Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout
1200 seconds
wallclock timeout
300 seconds
memory limit
137438953472 bytes
execution host
n077.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space
C4B_examples
run statistics
property
value
solver
AProVE
configuration
c_complexity
runtime (wallclock)
1.49698781967 seconds
cpu usage
2.554032305
max memory
2.57134592E8
stage attributes
key
value
output-size
16189
starexec-result
WORST_CASE(?, O(n^1))
output
/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/starexec_run_c_complexity /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.c /export/starexec/sandbox/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WORST_CASE(?, O(n^1)) proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/output/output_files/bench.koat # AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty The runtime complexity of the given CpxIntTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1). (0) CpxIntTrs (1) Koat Proof [FINISHED, 288 ms] (2) BOUNDS(1, n^1) ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Complexity Int TRS consisting of the following rules: eval_t11_start(v_.0, v_.01, v_m, v_n, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_t11_bb0_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_m, v_n, v_x, v_y)) :|: TRUE eval_t11_bb0_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_m, v_n, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_t11_bb1_in(v_x, v_y, v_m, v_n, v_x, v_y)) :|: TRUE eval_t11_bb1_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_m, v_n, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_t11_bb2_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_m, v_n, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_n > v_.0 eval_t11_bb1_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_m, v_n, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_t11_bb3_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_m, v_n, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_n <= v_.0 eval_t11_bb2_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_m, v_n, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_t11_bb1_in(v_.0, v_.01 + 1, v_m, v_n, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_m > v_.01 eval_t11_bb2_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_m, v_n, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_t11_bb1_in(v_.0 + 1, v_.01 + 1, v_m, v_n, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_m > v_.01 && v_m <= v_.01 eval_t11_bb2_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_m, v_n, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_t11_bb1_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_m, v_n, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_m <= v_.01 && v_m > v_.01 eval_t11_bb2_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_m, v_n, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_t11_bb1_in(v_.0 + 1, v_.01, v_m, v_n, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_m <= v_.01 eval_t11_bb3_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_m, v_n, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_t11_stop(v_.0, v_.01, v_m, v_n, v_x, v_y)) :|: TRUE The start-symbols are:[eval_t11_start_6] ---------------------------------------- (1) Koat Proof (FINISHED) YES(?, 2*ar_1 + 2*ar_4 + 2*ar_3 + 2*ar_5 + 7) Initial complexity problem: 1: T: (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalt11start(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11bb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalt11bb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11bb1in(ar_1, ar_1, ar_3, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalt11bb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11bb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ ar_4 >= ar_0 + 1 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalt11bb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11bb3in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ ar_0 >= ar_4 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalt11bb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11bb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2 + 1, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ ar_5 >= ar_2 + 1 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalt11bb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11bb1in(ar_0 + 1, ar_1, ar_2 + 1, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ ar_5 >= ar_2 + 1 /\ ar_2 >= ar_5 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalt11bb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11bb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ ar_2 >= ar_5 /\ ar_5 >= ar_2 + 1 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalt11bb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11bb1in(ar_0 + 1, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ ar_2 >= ar_5 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalt11bb3in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11stop(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) (Comp: 1, Cost: 0) koat_start(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11start(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ 0 <= 0 ] start location: koat_start leaf cost: 0 Testing for reachability in the complexity graph removes the following transitions from problem 1: evalt11bb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11bb1in(ar_0 + 1, ar_1, ar_2 + 1, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ ar_5 >= ar_2 + 1 /\ ar_2 >= ar_5 ] evalt11bb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11bb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ ar_2 >= ar_5 /\ ar_5 >= ar_2 + 1 ] We thus obtain the following problem: 2: T: (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalt11bb3in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11stop(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalt11bb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11bb1in(ar_0 + 1, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ ar_2 >= ar_5 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalt11bb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11bb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2 + 1, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ ar_5 >= ar_2 + 1 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalt11bb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11bb3in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ ar_0 >= ar_4 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalt11bb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11bb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ ar_4 >= ar_0 + 1 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalt11bb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11bb1in(ar_1, ar_1, ar_3, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalt11start(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11bb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) (Comp: 1, Cost: 0) koat_start(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalt11start(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ 0 <= 0 ] start location: koat_start
popout
output may be truncated. 'popout' for the full output.
job log
popout
actions
all output
return to Compl C Integ Progr 85445