details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	AliasDarteFeautrierGonnord-SAS2010-wise_true-termination.c
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n100.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	Adapted_from_Stroeder_15

run statistics

property	value
solver	AProVE
configuration	c_complexity
runtime (wallclock)	1.37613487244 seconds
cpu usage	2.324505279
max memory	2.28831232E8

stage attributes

key	value
output-size	25159
starexec-result	WORST_CASE(?, O(n^1))

output

/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_c_complexity /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.c /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WORST_CASE(?, O(n^1)) proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty The runtime complexity of the given CpxIntTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).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, 182 ms] (2) BOUNDS(1, n^1) ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Complexity Int TRS consisting of the following rules: eval_foo_start(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb0_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y)) :|: TRUE eval_foo_bb0_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb1_in(v_x, v_y, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_x >= 0 && v_y >= 0 eval_foo_bb0_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb2_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_x < 0 eval_foo_bb0_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb2_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_y < 0 eval_foo_bb1_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_.critedge_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_.0 - v_.01 > 2 eval_foo_bb1_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_.critedge_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_.01 - v_.0 > 2 eval_foo_bb1_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb2_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_.0 - v_.01 <= 2 && v_.01 - v_.0 <= 2 eval_foo_.critedge_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb1_in(v_.0 + 1, v_.01, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_.0 < v_.01 eval_foo_.critedge_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb1_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_.0 < v_.01 && v_.0 >= v_.01 eval_foo_.critedge_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb1_in(v_.0 + 1, v_.01 + 1, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_.0 >= v_.01 && v_.0 < v_.01 eval_foo_.critedge_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb1_in(v_.0, v_.01 + 1, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_.0 >= v_.01 eval_foo_bb2_in(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_stop(v_.0, v_.01, v_x, v_y)) :|: TRUE The start-symbols are:[eval_foo_start_4] ---------------------------------------- (1) Koat Proof (FINISHED) YES(?, 8*ar_0 + 8*ar_1 + 14) Initial complexity problem: 1: T: (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoostart(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3)) (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_0, ar_1)) [ ar_0 >= 0 /\ ar_1 >= 0 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3)) [ 0 >= ar_0 + 1 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3)) [ 0 >= ar_1 + 1 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoocritedgein(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3)) [ ar_2 >= ar_3 + 3 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoocritedgein(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3)) [ ar_3 >= ar_2 + 3 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3)) [ ar_3 + 2 >= ar_2 /\ ar_2 + 2 >= ar_3 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoocritedgein(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2 + 1, ar_3)) [ ar_3 >= ar_2 + 1 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoocritedgein(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3)) [ ar_3 >= ar_2 + 1 /\ ar_2 >= ar_3 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoocritedgein(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2 + 1, ar_3 + 1)) [ ar_2 >= ar_3 /\ ar_3 >= ar_2 + 1 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoocritedgein(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3 + 1)) [ ar_2 >= ar_3 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoostop(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3)) (Comp: 1, Cost: 0) koat_start(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoostart(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3)) [ 0 <= 0 ] start location: koat_start leaf cost: 0 Testing for reachability in the complexity graph removes the following transitions from problem 1: evalfoocritedgein(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3)) [ ar_3 >= ar_2 + 1 /\ ar_2 >= ar_3 ] evalfoocritedgein(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2 + 1, ar_3 + 1)) [ ar_2 >= ar_3 /\ ar_3 >= ar_2 + 1 ] We thus obtain the following problem: 2: T: (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoocritedgein(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2 + 1, ar_3)) [ ar_3 >= ar_2 + 1 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoocritedgein(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3 + 1)) [ ar_2 >= ar_3 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoostop(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3)) (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3)) [ ar_3 + 2 >= ar_2 /\ ar_2 + 2 >= ar_3 ] popout

output may be truncated. 'popout' for the full output.

job log

popout

actions

all output return to Compl C Integ Progr 85445