/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_standard /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.jar # AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty termination of the given Bare JBC problem could be disproven: (0) Bare JBC problem (1) BareJBCToJBCProof [EQUIVALENT, 96 ms] (2) JBC problem (3) JBCNonTerm [COMPLETE, 310 ms] (4) NO ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: need to prove termination of the following program: package simple.whileIncrPart; public class Main { /** * @param args */ public static void main(String[] args) { WhileIncrPart.increase(args.length); } } package simple.whileIncrPart; public class WhileIncrPart { public static void increase(int i) { while (i > 0) { if (i > 3) { i++; } else { i--; } } } } ---------------------------------------- (1) BareJBCToJBCProof (EQUIVALENT) initialized classpath ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: need to prove termination of the following program: package simple.whileIncrPart; public class Main { /** * @param args */ public static void main(String[] args) { WhileIncrPart.increase(args.length); } } package simple.whileIncrPart; public class WhileIncrPart { public static void increase(int i) { while (i > 0) { if (i > 3) { i++; } else { i--; } } } } ---------------------------------------- (3) JBCNonTerm (COMPLETE) Reached a loop using the following run: 0: a19([java.lang.String...]): length 4 -->{java.lang.Object...} YES: (JL1) 1: a19([java.lang.String...]): length 4 -->{java.lang.Object...} YES: (JL1) 2: YES: (JL1) 3: YES: (JL1) Start state of loop: [a9(lv_0_0)] i44: [0,+inf)(l1) i45: [0,+inf)(l2) a9([java.lang.String...]): length i45 -->{java.lang.Object...} YES: (JL1) In the loop head node, references [i44] were interesting. All methods calls in the loop body are side-effect free, hence they can be ignored. By SMT, we could prove ((0 <= initial_i44 and 0 <= initial_i45) and (((path2_i44 = path2_i72 and path2_i72 = path2_i76 and path2_i79 = (path2_i76 + 1) and path2_i79 = res_i44 and path2_i44 = initial_i44) and (path2_i72 > 0 and T and 3 = 3 and path2_i76 > 3)) and ((res2_i44 = res2_i72 and res2_i72 = res2_i76 and res2_i79 = (res2_i76 + 1) and res_i44 = res2_i44) and !(res2_i72 > 0 and T and 3 = 3 and res2_i76 > 3)))) to be UNSAT. Consequently, the loop will not terminate. ---------------------------------------- (4) NO