details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	svcomp_b.10.c
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n101.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	Adapted_from_Stroeder_15

run statistics

property	value
solver	AProVE
configuration	c_complexity
runtime (wallclock)	1.42951798439 seconds
cpu usage	2.440685085
max memory	2.28499456E8

stage attributes

key	value
output-size	30121
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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty The runtime complexity of the given CpxIntTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).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, 179 ms] (2) BOUNDS(1, n^1) ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Complexity Int TRS consisting of the following rules: eval_foo_start(v_.01, v_.02, v_.1, v_.2, v_c, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb0_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_.1, v_.2, v_c, v_x, v_y)) :|: TRUE eval_foo_bb0_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_.1, v_.2, v_c, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb1_in(v_x, v_y, v_.1, v_.2, v_c, v_x, v_y)) :|: TRUE eval_foo_bb1_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_.1, v_.2, v_c, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb2_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_.1, v_.2, v_c, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_.01 + v_.02 > 0 eval_foo_bb1_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_.1, v_.2, v_c, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb6_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_.1, v_.2, v_c, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_.01 + v_.02 <= 0 eval_foo_bb2_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_.1, v_.2, v_c, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb3_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_.1, v_.2, v_c, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_.01 > 0 eval_foo_bb2_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_.1, v_.2, v_c, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb4_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_.1, v_.2, v_c, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_.01 <= 0 eval_foo_bb3_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_.1, v_.2, v_c, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb5_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_.01 - 1, v_.02, v_c, v_x, v_y)) :|: TRUE eval_foo_bb4_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_.1, v_.2, v_c, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb5_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_.01, v_.02 - 1, v_c, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_.02 > 0 eval_foo_bb4_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_.1, v_.2, v_c, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb5_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_.01, v_.02, v_c, v_x, v_y)) :|: v_.02 <= 0 eval_foo_bb5_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_.1, v_.2, v_c, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb1_in(v_.1, v_.2, v_.1, v_.2, v_c, v_x, v_y)) :|: TRUE eval_foo_bb6_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_.1, v_.2, v_c, v_x, v_y) -> Com_1(eval_foo_stop(v_.01, v_.02, v_.1, v_.2, v_c, v_x, v_y)) :|: TRUE The start-symbols are:[eval_foo_start_7] ---------------------------------------- (1) Koat Proof (FINISHED) YES(?, 9*ar_3 + 10*ar_1 + 10) Initial complexity problem: 1: T: (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoostart(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoobb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_1, ar_1, ar_3, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ ar_0 + ar_2 >= 1 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoobb6in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ 0 >= ar_0 + ar_2 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoobb3in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ ar_0 >= 1 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoobb4in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ 0 >= ar_0 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb3in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoobb5in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_0 - 1, ar_2)) (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb4in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoobb5in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_0, ar_2 - 1)) [ ar_2 >= 1 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb4in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoobb5in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_0, ar_2)) [ 0 >= ar_2 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb5in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_4, ar_1, ar_5, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb6in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoostop(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(evalfoostart(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ 0 <= 0 ] start location: koat_start leaf cost: 0 Repeatedly propagating knowledge in problem 1 produces the following problem: 2: T: (Comp: 1, Cost: 1) evalfoostart(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoobb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) (Comp: 1, Cost: 1) evalfoobb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_1, ar_1, ar_3, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ ar_0 + ar_2 >= 1 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoobb6in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ 0 >= ar_0 + ar_2 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoobb3in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ ar_0 >= 1 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoobb4in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5)) [ 0 >= ar_0 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb3in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoobb5in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_0 - 1, ar_2)) (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb4in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoobb5in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_0, ar_2 - 1)) [ ar_2 >= 1 ] (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb4in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4, ar_5) -> Com_1(evalfoobb5in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_0, ar_2)) [ 0 >= ar_2 ] popout

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

job log

popout

actions

all output return to Compl C Integ Progr 85445