Worst sorting algorithm I ever saw: proving it using KLEE

Kernighan/Pike's book "The Practice of Programming" has a nice exercise:

Exercise 2-4. Design and implement an algorithm that will sort an array of n integers
as slowly as possible. You have to play fair: the algorithm must make progress and
eventually terminate, and the implementation must not cheat with tricks like timewasting
loops. What is the complexity of your algorithm as a function of n?

The problem is in fact tricky, but I've seen solution once in a serious and big piece of code I've rewritten to C.

Here it is:

void swap_ints (int *a, int *b)
	int tmp=*a;

void weird_sort(int* array, size_t size)
	for (int i=0; i<size; i++)
		for (int j=0; j<size-1; j++)
			if (array[j]>array[j+1])
				swap_ints (array+j, array+j+1);

This is bubble sort went wrong, there are no has-been-swapped variable, so the author added another loop, just to be sure everything is sorted at the end.

Bubble sort has worst-case performance $O(n^2)$ and best-case $O(n)$, this one always requires $n^2$ steps.

The moral of the story: sometimes it's easier to observe inputs/outputs, then to comprehend the code.

Even worse, when I googled for "bubble sort", just to be sure I'm correct, I've found quite similar implementation, also without has-been-swapped variable:

/* Bubble sort code */
int main()
  int array[100], n, c, d, swap;
  printf("Enter number of elements\n");
  scanf("%d", &n);
  printf("Enter %d integers\n", n);
  for (c = 0; c < n; c++)
    scanf("%d", &array[c]);
  for (c = 0 ; c < ( n - 1 ); c++)
    for (d = 0 ; d < n - c - 1; d++)
      if (array[d] > array[d+1]) /* For decreasing order use < */
        swap       = array[d];
        array[d]   = array[d+1];
        array[d+1] = swap;
  printf("Sorted list in ascending order:\n");
  for ( c = 0 ; c < n ; c++ )
     printf("%d\n", array[c]);
  return 0;

It's somewhat faster ($O(\frac{n^2}{2})$, if I'm correct), but still weird. I've found it on programmingsimplified.com website:

http://www.programmingsimplified.com/c/source-code/c-program-bubble-sort, http://archive.is/UbL3E.

Let's hope this is some kind of prank and they are not serious about it.

Proving it using KLEE

Despite the fact, it's so bad, it's still correct. Or is it? We can prove it using KLEE:

void swap_unsigned_chars (unsigned char *a, unsigned char *b)
        unsigned char tmp=*a;

void weird_sort(unsigned char* array, size_t size)
        for (unsigned char i=0; i<size; i++)
                for (unsigned char j=0; j<size-1; j++)
                        if (array[j]>array[j+1])
                                swap_unsigned_chars (array+j, array+j+1);

int main()
#define SIZE 6

        unsigned char buf[SIZE];
        klee_make_symbolic(buf, sizeof buf, "buf");

        weird_sort(buf, SIZE);

        // check it

        for (unsigned char i=0; i<SIZE; i++)
                for (unsigned char j=i+1; j<SIZE; j++)
                        if (buf[i]>buf[j])

We're asking KLEE to find such a 6 bytes in buf[], so that the buf[] will not be sorted after weird_sort() call.

It's not possible:

klee@774a0f6e485f:~$ time klee -libc=uclibc bad_sort.bc
KLEE: NOTE: Using klee-uclibc : /home/klee/klee_build/klee/Release+Debug+Asserts/lib/klee-uclibc.bca
KLEE: output directory is "/home/klee/klee-out-21"
Using STP solver backend
KLEE: WARNING: undefined reference to function: fcntl
KLEE: WARNING: undefined reference to function: fstat
KLEE: WARNING: undefined reference to function: ioctl
KLEE: WARNING: undefined reference to function: klee_assert
KLEE: WARNING: undefined reference to function: open
KLEE: WARNING: undefined reference to function: write
KLEE: WARNING ONCE: calling external: ioctl(0, 21505, 59516896)
KLEE: WARNING ONCE: calling __user_main with extra arguments.

KLEE: done: total instructions = 674686
KLEE: done: completed paths = 720
KLEE: done: generated tests = 720

KLEE can't find counterexample. Otherwise it would report (klee_assert() would be called):

KLEE: ERROR: /home/klee/bad_sort.c:32: failed external call: klee_assert

Unfortunately, I could only check it again 6-element array of bytes. And it took 2-3 minutes on my venerable Intel Xeon E3-1220 3.10GHz. So we can prove it's correct for all arrays of 1..6 elements of bytes.

Read also about proving sorting network correctness using Z3: https://yurichev.com/writings/SAT_SMT_by_example.pdf#page=82&zoom=auto,-266,268.

The algorithm became popular in Oct-2021.

→ [list of blog posts]