Complexity_C_Integer 2019-03-21 04.38 pair #429989226

details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	PastaA9.c
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n118.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	Adapted_from_Stroeder_15

run statistics

property	value
solver	AProVE
configuration	c_complexity
runtime (wallclock)	1.55956 seconds
cpu usage	2.50805
user time	2.31211
system time	0.195942
max virtual memory	1.8409792E7
max residence set size	185304.0

stage attributes

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

output

2.34/1.48	WORST_CASE(?, O(n^1))
2.34/1.49	proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files/bench.koat
2.34/1.49	# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	The runtime complexity of the given CpxIntTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	(0) CpxIntTrs
2.34/1.49	(1) Koat Proof [FINISHED, 183 ms]
2.34/1.49	(2) BOUNDS(1, n^1)
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	----------------------------------------
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	(0)
2.34/1.49	Obligation:
2.34/1.49	Complexity Int TRS consisting of the following rules:
2.34/1.49	eval_foo_start(v_.0, v_x, v_y, v_z) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb0_in(v_.0, v_x, v_y, v_z)) :|: TRUE
2.34/1.49	eval_foo_bb0_in(v_.0, v_x, v_y, v_z) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb1_in(v_z, v_x, v_y, v_z)) :|: v_y > 0
2.34/1.49	eval_foo_bb0_in(v_.0, v_x, v_y, v_z) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb3_in(v_.0, v_x, v_y, v_z)) :|: v_y <= 0
2.34/1.49	eval_foo_bb1_in(v_.0, v_x, v_y, v_z) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb2_in(v_.0, v_x, v_y, v_z)) :|: v_x >= v_.0
2.34/1.49	eval_foo_bb1_in(v_.0, v_x, v_y, v_z) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb3_in(v_.0, v_x, v_y, v_z)) :|: v_x < v_.0
2.34/1.49	eval_foo_bb2_in(v_.0, v_x, v_y, v_z) -> Com_1(eval_foo_bb1_in(v_.0 + v_y, v_x, v_y, v_z)) :|: TRUE
2.34/1.49	eval_foo_bb3_in(v_.0, v_x, v_y, v_z) -> Com_1(eval_foo_stop(v_.0, v_x, v_y, v_z)) :|: TRUE
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	The start-symbols are:[eval_foo_start_4]
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	----------------------------------------
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	(1) Koat Proof (FINISHED)
2.34/1.49	YES(?, 4*ar_2 + 4*ar_3 + 11)
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	Initial complexity problem:
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	1:	T:
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49			(Comp: ?, Cost: 1)    evalfoostart(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3))
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49			(Comp: ?, Cost: 1)    evalfoobb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_2, ar_2, ar_3)) [ ar_0 >= 1 ]
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49			(Comp: ?, Cost: 1)    evalfoobb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb3in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3)) [ 0 >= ar_0 ]
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49			(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 >= ar_1 ]
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49			(Comp: ?, Cost: 1)    evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb3in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3)) [ ar_1 >= ar_3 + 1 ]
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49			(Comp: ?, Cost: 1)    evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1 + ar_0, ar_2, ar_3))
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49			(Comp: ?, Cost: 1)    evalfoobb3in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoostop(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3))
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49			(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 ]
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49		start location:	koat_start
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49		leaf cost:	0
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	Repeatedly propagating knowledge in problem 1 produces the following problem:
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	2:	T:
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49			(Comp: 1, Cost: 1)    evalfoostart(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3))
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49			(Comp: 1, Cost: 1)    evalfoobb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_2, ar_2, ar_3)) [ ar_0 >= 1 ]
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49			(Comp: 1, Cost: 1)    evalfoobb0in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb3in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3)) [ 0 >= ar_0 ]
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49			(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 >= ar_1 ]
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49			(Comp: ?, Cost: 1)    evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb3in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3)) [ ar_1 >= ar_3 + 1 ]
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49			(Comp: ?, Cost: 1)    evalfoobb2in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoobb1in(ar_0, ar_1 + ar_0, ar_2, ar_3))
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49			(Comp: ?, Cost: 1)    evalfoobb3in(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3) -> Com_1(evalfoostop(ar_0, ar_1, ar_2, ar_3))
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49			(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 ]
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49		start location:	koat_start
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49		leaf cost:	0
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49	A polynomial rank function with
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49		Pol(evalfoostart) = 2
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49		Pol(evalfoobb0in) = 2
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49		Pol(evalfoobb1in) = 2
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49		Pol(evalfoobb3in) = 1
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49		Pol(evalfoobb2in) = 2
2.34/1.49	
2.34/1.49		Pol(evalfoostop) = 0

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