Spaces
Explore
Communities
Statistics
Reports
Cluster
Status
Help
Complexity_C_Integer 2019-03-21 04.38 pair #429989114
details
property
value
status
complete
benchmark
svcomp_c.03.c
ran by
Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout
1200 seconds
wallclock timeout
300 seconds
memory limit
137438953472 bytes
execution host
n031.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space
Adapted_from_Stroeder_15
run statistics
property
value
solver
AProVE
configuration
c_complexity
runtime (wallclock)
1.44677 seconds
cpu usage
2.46203
user time
2.22937
system time
0.23266
max virtual memory
1.8429164E7
max residence set size
181040.0
stage attributes
key
value
starexec-result
WORST_CASE(?, O(n^1))
output
2.29/1.41 WORST_CASE(?, O(n^1)) 2.40/1.42 proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/output/output_files/bench.koat 2.40/1.42 # AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 The runtime complexity of the given CpxIntTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1). 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (0) CpxIntTrs 2.40/1.42 (1) Koat Proof [FINISHED, 278 ms] 2.40/1.42 (2) BOUNDS(1, n^1) 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 ---------------------------------------- 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (0) 2.40/1.42 Obligation: 2.40/1.42 Complexity Int TRS consisting of the following rules: 2.40/1.42 eval_foo_start(v_.01, v_.02, v_c, v_x, v_y, v_z) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb0_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_c, v_x, v_y, v_z)) :|: TRUE 2.40/1.42 eval_foo_bb0_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_c, v_x, v_y, v_z) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb1_in(v_x, v_z, v_c, v_x, v_y, v_z)) :|: TRUE 2.40/1.42 eval_foo_bb1_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_c, v_x, v_y, v_z) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb2_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_c, v_x, v_y, v_z)) :|: v_.01 < v_y 2.40/1.42 eval_foo_bb1_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_c, v_x, v_y, v_z) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb3_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_c, v_x, v_y, v_z)) :|: v_.01 >= v_y 2.40/1.42 eval_foo_bb2_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_c, v_x, v_y, v_z) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb1_in(v_.01 + 1, v_.02, v_c, v_x, v_y, v_z)) :|: v_.01 < v_.02 2.40/1.42 eval_foo_bb2_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_c, v_x, v_y, v_z) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb1_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_c, v_x, v_y, v_z)) :|: v_.01 < v_.02 && v_.01 >= v_.02 2.40/1.42 eval_foo_bb2_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_c, v_x, v_y, v_z) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb1_in(v_.01 + 1, v_.02 + 1, v_c, v_x, v_y, v_z)) :|: v_.01 >= v_.02 && v_.01 < v_.02 2.40/1.42 eval_foo_bb2_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_c, v_x, v_y, v_z) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb1_in(v_.01, v_.02 + 1, v_c, v_x, v_y, v_z)) :|: v_.01 >= v_.02 2.40/1.42 eval_foo_bb3_in(v_.01, v_.02, v_c, v_x, v_y, v_z) -> Com_1(eval_foo_stop(v_.01, v_.02, v_c, v_x, v_y, v_z)) :|: TRUE 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 The start-symbols are:[eval_foo_start_6] 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 ---------------------------------------- 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (1) Koat Proof (FINISHED) 2.40/1.42 YES(?, 2*ar_3 + 4*ar_4 + 2*ar_1 + 7) 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 Initial complexity problem: 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 1: T: 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoostart(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoobb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4)) 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_1, ar_1, ar_3, ar_3, ar_4)) 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4)) [ ar_4 >= ar_0 + 1 ] 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoobb3in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4)) [ ar_0 >= ar_4 ] 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0 + 1, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4)) [ ar_2 >= ar_0 + 1 ] 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4)) [ ar_2 >= ar_0 + 1 /\ ar_0 >= ar_2 ] 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0 + 1, ar_1, ar_2 + 1, ar_3, ar_4)) [ ar_0 >= ar_2 /\ ar_2 >= ar_0 + 1 ] 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2 + 1, ar_3, ar_4)) [ ar_0 >= ar_2 ] 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb3in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoostop(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4)) 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (Comp: 1, Cost: 0) koat_start(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoostart(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4)) [ 0 <= 0 ] 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 start location: koat_start 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 leaf cost: 0 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 Testing for reachability in the complexity graph removes the following transitions from problem 1: 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4)) [ ar_2 >= ar_0 + 1 /\ ar_0 >= ar_2 ] 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0 + 1, ar_1, ar_2 + 1, ar_3, ar_4)) [ ar_0 >= ar_2 /\ ar_2 >= ar_0 + 1 ] 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 We thus obtain the following problem: 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 2: T: 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb3in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoostop(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4)) 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2 + 1, ar_3, ar_4)) [ ar_0 >= ar_2 ] 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0 + 1, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4)) [ ar_2 >= ar_0 + 1 ] 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoobb3in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4)) [ ar_0 >= ar_4 ] 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4)) [ ar_4 >= ar_0 + 1 ] 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoobb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_1, ar_1, ar_3, ar_3, ar_4)) 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (Comp: ?, Cost: 1) evalfoostart(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoobb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4)) 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 (Comp: 1, Cost: 0) koat_start(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4) -> Com_1(evalfoostart(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3, ar_4)) [ 0 <= 0 ] 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 start location: koat_start 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 leaf cost: 0 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 2.40/1.42 Repeatedly propagating knowledge in problem 2 produces the following problem:
popout
output may be truncated. 'popout' for the full output.
job log
popout
actions
all output
return to Complexity_C_Integer 2019-03-21 04.38