TECHNICAL ASSET FINGERPRINT
447267fb318c65cba853b088
Click to view fullscreen
Press ESC or click to close
FOUND IN PAPERS
EXPERT: gemma-3-27b-it-free VERSION 1
RUNTIME: google-free/gemma-3-27b-it
INTEL_VERIFIED
\n
## Table: Function Performance Comparison
### Overview
This image presents a table comparing the performance of various functions across different compiler versions and optimization levels. The table displays execution times (atime vc) for each function under different configurations. A checkmark indicates whether the function passed a verification test.
### Components/Axes
The table has the following structure:
* **Rows:** Represent different functions (e.g., `parse_integ`, `check_bytes`, `strcat`). There are 29 functions listed.
* **Columns:** Represent different compiler/optimization configurations.
* **Function:** The name of the function being tested.
* **VC:** Total number of verification cases.
* **Alt-Ergo:** Compiler version 2.4.1
* **CVC3:** Compiler version 1.4
* **CVC4:** Compiler versions 1.4, 1.5, 1.9.1-001, 3.9, 4.5.0
* **Eprover:** Compiler version 3.9
* **Spass:** Compiler version 4.3
* **Data:** The cells contain execution times in seconds (atime vc) or a checkmark (✓) indicating successful verification.
* **Footer:** Contains a note about the execution environment: "x86-64, 2Go, Ubuntu 20.04 LTS".
### Detailed Analysis or Content Details
Here's a breakdown of the data, function by function, with approximate values and trends. I will focus on the 'atime vc' values. The checkmarks are noted where present.
* **parse_integ:** VC: 282. Alt-Ergo: 0.83. CVC3 (1.4): 0.18. CVC4 (1.4): 0.18. CVC4 (1.5): 0.10. Eprover: 0.24. Spass: 1.69. Z3: 0.08.
* **check_bytes8:** VC: 50. Alt-Ergo: 0.55. CVC3 (1.4): 0.09. CVC4 (1.4): 0.09. CVC4 (1.5): 0.11. Eprover: 1.76. Spass: 8.38. Z3: 1.52.
* **strtobool:** VC: 1096. Alt-Ergo: 0.05. CVC3 (1.4): 0.08. CVC4 (1.4): 0.10. CVC4 (1.5): 0.09. Eprover: 0.93. Spass: 0.38. Z3: 0.15. ✓
* **memchr:** VC: 39. Alt-Ergo: 6.05. CVC3 (1.4): 0.22. CVC4 (1.4): 0.37. CVC4 (1.5): 0.15. Eprover: 2.58. Spass: 5.73. Z3: 0.12. ✓
* **memcmp:** VC: 60. Alt-Ergo: 0.13. CVC3 (1.4): 0.15. CVC4 (1.4): 0.10. CVC4 (1.5): 0.10. Eprover: 0.51. Spass: 4.45. Z3: 0.15.
* **memcpy:** VC: 43. Alt-Ergo: 4.18. CVC3 (1.4): 0.35. CVC4 (1.4): 0.16. CVC4 (1.5): 0.14. Eprover: 1.05. Spass: 6.85. Z3: 0.06. ✓
* **memmove:** VC: 93*(92). Alt-Ergo: 3.94. CVC3 (1.4): 0.88. CVC4 (1.4): 0.16. CVC4 (1.5): 0.18. Eprover: 0.95. Spass: 11.87. Z3: 0.30.
* **memsccan:** VC: 47. Alt-Ergo: 0.07. CVC3 (1.4): 0.10. CVC4 (1.4): 0.09. CVC4 (1.5): 0.09. Eprover: 0.59. Spass: 4.55. Z3: 0.06.
* **memset:** VC: 27. Alt-Ergo: 5.02. CVC3 (1.4): 0.19. CVC4 (1.4): 0.19. CVC4 (1.5): 0.16. Eprover: 3.82. Spass: 11.12. Z3: 0.08.
* **skip_spaces:** VC: 34. Alt-Ergo: 0.76. CVC3 (1.4): 1.96. CVC4 (1.4): 0.51. CVC4 (1.5): 0.14. Eprover: 0.70. Spass: 0.34. Z3: 0.09.
* **strcasecmp:** VC: 58. Alt-Ergo: 0.43. CVC3 (1.4): 1.65. CVC4 (1.4): 0.79. CVC4 (1.5): 0.53. Eprover: 0.28. Spass: 2.85. Z3: 0.49.
* **strcat:** VC: 60. Alt-Ergo: 0.10. CVC3 (1.4): 1.18. CVC4 (1.4): 0.67. CVC4 (1.5): 0.54. Eprover: 2.56. Spass: 4.60. Z3: 0.05. ✓
* **strchr:** VC: 43. Alt-Ergo: 2.57. CVC3 (1.4): 0.27. CVC4 (1.4): 0.23. CVC4 (1.5): 0.22. Eprover: 1.10. Spass: 3.65. Z3: 0.06.
* **strcmp:** VC: 46. Alt-Ergo: 4.33. CVC3 (1.4): 0.19. CVC4 (1.4): 0.19. CVC4 (1.5): 0.16. Eprover: 0.83. Spass: 2.72. Z3: 0.05. ✓
* **strcpy:** VC: 41. Alt-Ergo: 2.80. CVC3 (1.4): 0.23. CVC4 (1.4): 0.20. CVC4 (1.5): 0.18. Eprover: 0.75. Spass: 3.41. Z3: 0.06. ✓
* **strcspn:** VC: 62. Alt-Ergo: 0.58. CVC3 (1.4): 1.30. CVC4 (1.4): 0.48. CVC4 (1.5): 0.39. Eprover: 0.25. Spass: 2.97. Z3: 0.42.
* **strlen:** VC: 40. Alt-Ergo: 0.05. CVC3 (1.4): 0.09. CVC4 (1.4): 0.08. CVC4 (1.5): 0.08. Eprover: 0.19. Spass: 0.70. Z3: 0.02. ✓
* **strncat:** VC: 64. Alt-Ergo: 0.12. CVC3 (1.4): 1.22. CVC4 (1.4): 0.59. CVC4 (1.5): 0.49. Eprover: 2.43. Spass: 4.39. Z3: 0.05. ✓
* **strncmp:** VC: 42. Alt-Ergo: 4.26. CVC3 (1.4): 0.17. CVC4 (1.4): 0.17. CVC4 (1.5): 0.15. Eprover: 0.79. Spass: 2.66. Z3: 0.05. ✓
* **strncpy:** VC: 45. Alt-Ergo: 2.99. CVC3 (1.4): 0.25. CVC4 (1.4): 0.21. CVC4 (1.5): 0.19. Eprover: 0.98. Spass: 3.50. Z3: 0.06. ✓
* **strrchr:** VC: 43. Alt-Ergo: 2.73. CVC3 (1.4): 0.27. CVC4 (1.4): 0.23. CVC4 (1.5): 0.22. Eprover: 1.07. Spass: 3.65. Z3: 0.06.
* **strstr:** VC: 46. Alt-Ergo: 3.59. CVC3 (1.4): 0.33. CVC4 (1.4): 0.29. CVC4 (1.5): 0.26. Eprover: 0.92. Spass: 3.29. Z3: 0.07. ✓
* **swab:** VC: 1104. Alt-Ergo: 0.08. CVC3 (1.4): 0.10. CVC4 (1.4): 0.12. CVC4 (1.5): 0.11. Eprover: 0.93. Spass: 0.40. Z3: 0.16.
* **wcscmp:** VC: 74. Alt-Ergo: 0.10. CVC3 (1.4): 0.20. CVC4 (1.4): 0.11. CVC4 (1.5): 0.11. Eprover: 2.56. Spass: 4.67. Z3: 0.05.
* **wcschr:** VC: 43. Alt-Ergo: 2.66. CVC3 (1.4): 0.27. CVC4 (1.4): 0.23. CVC4 (1.5): 0.22. Eprover: 1.08. Spass: 3.65. Z3: 0.06.
* **wcsncmp:** VC: 42. Alt-Ergo: 4.25. CVC3 (1.4): 0.17. CVC4 (1.4): 0.17. CVC4 (1.5): 0.15. Eprover: 0.79. Spass: 2.66. Z3: 0.05. ✓
* **wcsstr:** VC: 46. Alt-Ergo: 3.60. CVC3 (1.4): 0.33. CVC4 (1.4): 0.29. CVC4 (1.5): 0.26. Eprover: 0.92. Spass: 3.29. Z3: 0.07. ✓
### Key Observations
* **Alt-Ergo** generally exhibits the highest execution times for many functions, particularly string manipulation functions.
* **Z3** consistently shows the lowest execution times across most functions.
* **CVC4 (versions 1.5 and higher)** generally performs better than CVC3 and CVC4 (1.4).
* Functions with checkmarks (✓) passed verification tests, but this doesn't necessarily correlate with performance.
* There's a wide range of performance variation depending on the function and the solver used.
### Interpretation
This table provides a comparative performance analysis of different SMT solvers (Alt-Ergo, CVC3, CVC4, Eprover, Spass, and Z3) on a set of standard C library functions. The data suggests that Z3 is the most efficient solver for these functions, consistently achieving the lowest execution times. Alt-Ergo, on the other hand, is generally the slowest. The performance of CVC4 appears to improve with newer versions.
The differences in performance likely stem from the underlying algorithms and optimization techniques employed by each solver. The verification checkmarks indicate that the solvers are able to correctly determine the behavior of the functions, but the execution time reflects the efficiency with which they do so.
The wide performance variation highlights the importance of selecting the appropriate solver for a given task. For applications where performance is critical, Z3 would be a strong candidate. The execution environment (x86-64, 2Go, Ubuntu 20.04 LTS) is noted, and results may vary on different hardware or operating systems. The asterisk next to the memmove VC suggests a potential issue or variation in the number of verification cases.
DECODING INTELLIGENCE...