details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	LPAR_intlist.xml
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n042.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	AProVE_04

run statistics

property	value
solver	tct 2018-07-13
configuration	tct_rc
runtime (wallclock)	294.584411144 seconds
cpu usage	643.615929718
max memory	1.75136768E8

stage attributes

key	value
output-size	18499
starexec-result	WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),?)

output

/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/starexec_run_tct_rc /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),?) * Step 1: Sum WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),?) + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: int(x,x) -> cons(x,nil()) int(0(),s(y)) -> cons(0(),int(s(0()),s(y))) int(s(x),0()) -> nil() int(s(x),s(y)) -> intlist(int(x,y)) intlist(cons(x,y)) -> cons(s(x),intlist(y)) intlist(cons(x,nil())) -> cons(s(x),nil()) intlist(nil()) -> nil() - Signature: {int/2,intlist/1} / {0/0,cons/2,nil/0,s/1} - Obligation: runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {int,intlist} and constructors {0,cons,nil,s} + Applied Processor: Sum {left = someStrategy, right = someStrategy} + Details: () ** Step 1.a:1: DecreasingLoops WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),?) + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: int(x,x) -> cons(x,nil()) int(0(),s(y)) -> cons(0(),int(s(0()),s(y))) int(s(x),0()) -> nil() int(s(x),s(y)) -> intlist(int(x,y)) intlist(cons(x,y)) -> cons(s(x),intlist(y)) intlist(cons(x,nil())) -> cons(s(x),nil()) intlist(nil()) -> nil() - Signature: {int/2,intlist/1} / {0/0,cons/2,nil/0,s/1} - Obligation: runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {int,intlist} and constructors {0,cons,nil,s} + Applied Processor: DecreasingLoops {bound = AnyLoop, narrow = 10} + Details: The system has following decreasing Loops: int(x,y){x -> s(x),y -> s(y)} = int(s(x),s(y)) ->^+ intlist(int(x,y)) = C[int(x,y) = int(x,y){}] ** Step 1.b:1: ToInnermost MAYBE + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: int(x,x) -> cons(x,nil()) int(0(),s(y)) -> cons(0(),int(s(0()),s(y))) int(s(x),0()) -> nil() int(s(x),s(y)) -> intlist(int(x,y)) intlist(cons(x,y)) -> cons(s(x),intlist(y)) intlist(cons(x,nil())) -> cons(s(x),nil()) intlist(nil()) -> nil() - Signature: {int/2,intlist/1} / {0/0,cons/2,nil/0,s/1} - Obligation: runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {int,intlist} and constructors {0,cons,nil,s} + Applied Processor: ToInnermost + Details: switch to innermost, as the system is overlay and right linear and does not contain weak rules ** Step 1.b:2: DependencyPairs MAYBE + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: int(x,x) -> cons(x,nil()) int(0(),s(y)) -> cons(0(),int(s(0()),s(y))) int(s(x),0()) -> nil() int(s(x),s(y)) -> intlist(int(x,y)) intlist(cons(x,y)) -> cons(s(x),intlist(y)) intlist(cons(x,nil())) -> cons(s(x),nil()) intlist(nil()) -> nil() - Signature: {int/2,intlist/1} / {0/0,cons/2,nil/0,s/1} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {int,intlist} and constructors {0,cons,nil,s} + Applied Processor: DependencyPairs {dpKind_ = DT} + Details: We add the following dependency tuples: Strict DPs int#(x,x) -> c_1() int#(0(),s(y)) -> c_2(int#(s(0()),s(y))) int#(s(x),0()) -> c_3() int#(s(x),s(y)) -> c_4(intlist#(int(x,y)),int#(x,y)) intlist#(cons(x,y)) -> c_5(intlist#(y)) intlist#(cons(x,nil())) -> c_6() intlist#(nil()) -> c_7() Weak DPs and mark the set of starting terms. ** Step 1.b:3: PredecessorEstimation MAYBE + Considered Problem: - Strict DPs: int#(x,x) -> c_1() popout

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

job log

popout

actions

all output return to Runti Compl Full Rewri 10127