Proving Select Sort algorithm using SPARK - ada

I am trying to prove that my implementation of Select Sort in Ada is correct. I have tried a few loop invariants, but using gnatprove only proves inner loop's invariant:
package body Selection with SPARK_Mode is
procedure Sort (A : in out Arr) is
I: Integer := A'First;
J: Integer;
Min_Idx: Integer;
Tmp: Integer;
begin
while I < A'Last loop
pragma Loop_Invariant
(Sorted( A (A'First .. I) ));
Min_Idx := I;
J := I + 1;
while J <= A'Last loop
if A (J) < A (Min_Idx) then
Min_Idx := J;
end if;
pragma Loop_Invariant
(for all Index in I .. J => (A (Min_Idx) <= A (Index)));
J := J + 1;
end loop;
Tmp := A (Min_Idx);
A (Min_Idx) := A (I);
A (I) := Tmp;
I := I + 1;
end loop;
end Sort;
end Selection;
package Selection with SPARK_Mode is
type Arr is array (Integer range <>) of Integer;
function Sorted (A : Arr) return Boolean
is (for all I in A'First .. A'Last - 1 => A(I) <= A(I + 1))
with
Ghost,
Pre => A'Last > Integer'First;
procedure Sort (A : in out Arr)
with
Pre => A'First in Integer'First + 1 .. Integer'Last - 1 and
A'Last in Integer'First + 1 .. Integer'Last - 1,
Post => Sorted (A);
end Selection;
Gnatprove tells me
selection.adb:15:14: medium: loop invariant might not be preserved by an arbitrary iteration, cannot prove Sorted( A (A'First..I)) (e.g. when A = (-1 => 0, 0 => 0, others => 1) and A'First = -1)
Do you have any ideas how to solve this problem?

I reworked the routine a little bit, added two loop invariants to the outer loops and moved all of them to the end of the loop. The two additional loop invariants state that the element being processed is always greater-than or equal-than those that have already been processed and less-than or equal-than those yet to be processed.
I also changed the Sorted ghost function / predicate to only apply the quantified expression to arrays with length greater than 1. This is to prevent problems with overflow. For arrays of length 0 or 1, the function returns True by definition as (if False then <bool_expr>) is True (or vacuously true, if I remember correctly).
All VCs can be discharged/proved with gnatprove that ships with GNAT/SPARK CE 2020 at level 1:
$ gnatprove -Pdefault.gpr -j0 --report=all --level=1
selection.ads
package Selection with SPARK_Mode is
type Arr is array (Integer range <>) of Integer;
function Sorted (A : Arr) return Boolean is
(if A'Length > 1 then
(for all I in A'First + 1 .. A'Last => A (I - 1) <= A (I)))
with Ghost;
procedure Sort (A : in out Arr)
with Post => Sorted (A);
end Selection;
selection.adb
package body Selection with SPARK_Mode is
----------
-- Sort --
----------
procedure Sort (A : in out Arr) is
M : Integer;
begin
if A'Length > 1 then
for I in A'First .. A'Last - 1 loop
M := I;
for J in I + 1 .. A'Last loop
if A (J) <= A (M) then
M := J;
end if;
pragma Loop_Invariant (M in I .. J);
pragma Loop_Invariant (for all K in I .. J => A (M) <= A (K));
end loop;
declare
T : constant Integer := A (I);
begin
A (I) := A (M);
A (M) := T;
end;
-- Linear incremental sorting in ascending order.
pragma Loop_Invariant (for all K in A'First .. I => A (K) <= A (I));
pragma Loop_Invariant (for all K in I .. A'Last => A (I) <= A (K));
pragma Loop_Invariant (Sorted (A (A'First .. I)));
end loop;
end if;
end Sort;
end Selection;

Related

Is this a bug with UTF conversion in GNAT Ada

I am trying to convert from UTF 16 to UTF 8; this is a test program:
with Ada.Text_IO;
with Ada.Strings.UTF_Encoding.Conversions;
use Ada.Text_IO;
use Ada.Strings.Utf_Encoding.Conversions;
use Ada.Strings.UTF_Encoding;
procedure Main is
Str_8: UTF_8_String := "𝄞";
Str_16: UTF_16_Wide_String := Convert(Str_8);
Str_8_New: UTF_8_String := Convert(Str_16);
begin
if Str_8 = Str_8_New then
Put_Line("OK");
else
Put_Line("Bug");
end if;
end Main;
With latest GNAT community it prints "Bug". Is this a bug in the implementation of UTF conversion functions or am I doing something wrong here?
Edit: For reference, this issue has been accepted as Bug 95953 / Bug 95959.
As shown here, #DeeDee has identified a bug in the implementation of Convert for UTF_16 to UTF_8. The problem arises in byte three of the four byte value for code points in the range U+10000 to U+10FFFF, shown here. The source documents the relevant bit fields:
-- Codes in the range 16#10000# - 16#10FFFF#
-- UTF-16: 110110zzzzyyyyyy 110111yyxxxxxxxx
-- UTF-8: 11110zzz 10zzyyyy 10yyyyxx 10xxxxxx
-- Note: zzzzz in the output is input zzzz + 1
Byte three is constructed as follows:
Result (Len + 3) :=
Character'Val
(2#10_000000# or Shift_Left (yyyyyyyy and 2#1111#, 4)
or Shift_Right (xxxxxxxx, 6));
While the low four bits of yyyyyyyy are used to construct byte three, the value only needs to be shifted two places left to make room for the top two bits of xxxxxxxx. The correct formulation should be this:
Result (Len + 3) :=
Character'Val
(2#10_000000# or Shift_Left (yyyyyyyy and 2#1111#, 2)
or Shift_Right (xxxxxxxx, 6));
For reference, the complete example below recapitulates the original implementation, with enough additions to study the problem in isolation. The output shows the code point, the expected binary representation of the UTF-8 encoding, the conversion to UTF-16, the incorrect UTF-8 conversion, and the correct UTF-8 conversion.
Codepoint: 16#1D11E#
UTF-8: 4: 2#11110000# 2#10011101# 2#10000100# 2#10011110#
UTF-16: 2: 2#1101100000110100# 2#1101110100011110#
UTF-8: 4: 2#11110000# 2#10011101# 2#10010000# 2#10011110#
UTF-8: 4: 2#11110000# 2#10011101# 2#10000100# 2#10011110#
OK
Code:
-- https://stackoverflow.com/q/62564638/230513
with Ada.Text_IO; use Ada.Text_IO;
with Ada.Integer_Text_IO; use Ada.Integer_Text_IO;
with Ada.Strings.UTF_Encoding; use Ada.Strings.UTF_Encoding;
with Ada.Strings.UTF_Encoding.Conversions;
use Ada.Strings.UTF_Encoding.Conversions;
with Ada.Strings.UTF_Encoding.Wide_Wide_Strings;
use Ada.Strings.UTF_Encoding.Wide_Wide_Strings;
with Interfaces; use Interfaces;
with Unchecked_Conversion;
procedure UTFTest is
-- http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/1d11e/index.htm
Clef : constant Wide_Wide_String :=
(1 => Wide_Wide_Character'Val (16#1D11E#));
Str_8 : constant UTF_8_String := Encode (Clef);
Str_16 : constant UTF_16_Wide_String := Convert (Str_8);
Str_8_New : constant UTF_8_String := Convert (Str_16);
My_Str_8 : UTF_8_String := Convert (Str_16);
function To_Unsigned_16 is new Unchecked_Conversion (Wide_Character,
Interfaces.Unsigned_16);
procedure Raise_Encoding_Error (Index : Natural) is
Val : constant String := Index'Img;
begin
raise Encoding_Error
with "bad input at Item (" & Val (Val'First + 1 .. Val'Last) & ')';
end Raise_Encoding_Error;
function My_Convert (Item : UTF_16_Wide_String;
Output_BOM : Boolean := False) return UTF_8_String
is
Result : UTF_8_String (1 .. 3 * Item'Length + 3);
-- Worst case is 3 output codes for each input code + BOM space
Len : Natural;
-- Number of result codes stored
Iptr : Natural;
-- Pointer to next input character
C1, C2 : Unsigned_16;
zzzzz : Unsigned_16;
yyyyyyyy : Unsigned_16;
xxxxxxxx : Unsigned_16;
-- Components of double length case
begin
Iptr := Item'First;
-- Skip BOM at start of input
if Item'Length > 0 and then Item (Iptr) = BOM_16 (1) then
Iptr := Iptr + 1;
end if;
-- Generate output BOM if required
if Output_BOM then
Result (1 .. 3) := BOM_8;
Len := 3;
else
Len := 0;
end if;
-- Loop through input
while Iptr <= Item'Last loop
C1 := To_Unsigned_16 (Item (Iptr));
Iptr := Iptr + 1;
-- Codes in the range 16#0000# - 16#007F#
-- UTF-16: 000000000xxxxxxx
-- UTF-8: 0xxxxxxx
if C1 <= 16#007F# then
Result (Len + 1) := Character'Val (C1);
Len := Len + 1;
-- Codes in the range 16#80# - 16#7FF#
-- UTF-16: 00000yyyxxxxxxxx
-- UTF-8: 110yyyxx 10xxxxxx
elsif C1 <= 16#07FF# then
Result (Len + 1) :=
Character'Val (2#110_00000# or Shift_Right (C1, 6));
Result (Len + 2) :=
Character'Val (2#10_000000# or (C1 and 2#00_111111#));
Len := Len + 2;
-- Codes in the range 16#800# - 16#D7FF# or 16#E000# - 16#FFFF#
-- UTF-16: yyyyyyyyxxxxxxxx
-- UTF-8: 1110yyyy 10yyyyxx 10xxxxxx
elsif C1 <= 16#D7FF# or else C1 >= 16#E000# then
Result (Len + 1) :=
Character'Val (2#1110_0000# or Shift_Right (C1, 12));
Result (Len + 2) :=
Character'Val
(2#10_000000# or (Shift_Right (C1, 6) and 2#00_111111#));
Result (Len + 3) :=
Character'Val (2#10_000000# or (C1 and 2#00_111111#));
Len := Len + 3;
-- Codes in the range 16#10000# - 16#10FFFF#
-- UTF-16: 110110zzzzyyyyyy 110111yyxxxxxxxx
-- UTF-8: 11110zzz 10zzyyyy 10yyyyxx 10xxxxxx
-- Note: zzzzz in the output is input zzzz + 1
elsif C1 <= 2#110110_11_11111111# then
if Iptr > Item'Last then
Raise_Encoding_Error (Iptr - 1);
else
C2 := To_Unsigned_16 (Item (Iptr));
Iptr := Iptr + 1;
end if;
if (C2 and 2#111111_00_00000000#) /= 2#110111_00_00000000# then
Raise_Encoding_Error (Iptr - 1);
end if;
zzzzz := (Shift_Right (C1, 6) and 2#1111#) + 1;
yyyyyyyy :=
((Shift_Left (C1, 2) and 2#111111_00#) or
(Shift_Right (C2, 8) and 2#000000_11#));
xxxxxxxx := C2 and 2#11111111#;
Result (Len + 1) :=
Character'Val (2#11110_000# or (Shift_Right (zzzzz, 2)));
Result (Len + 2) :=
Character'Val
(2#10_000000# or Shift_Left (zzzzz and 2#11#, 4) or
Shift_Right (yyyyyyyy, 4));
Result (Len + 3) :=
Character'Val
(2#10_000000# or Shift_Left (yyyyyyyy and 2#1111#, 2) or
Shift_Right (xxxxxxxx, 6));
Result (Len + 4) :=
Character'Val (2#10_000000# or (xxxxxxxx and 2#00_111111#));
Len := Len + 4;
-- Error if input in 16#DC00# - 16#DFFF# (2nd surrogate with no 1st)
else
Raise_Encoding_Error (Iptr - 2);
end if;
end loop;
return Result (1 .. Len);
end My_Convert;
procedure Show (S : String) is
begin
Put(" UTF-8: ");
Put (S'Length, 1);
Put (":");
for C of S loop
Put (Character'Pos (C), 12, 2);
end loop;
New_Line;
end Show;
procedure Show (S : Wide_String) is
begin
Put("UTF-16: ");
Put (S'Length, 1);
Put (":");
for C of S loop
Put (Wide_Character'Pos (C), 20, 2);
end loop;
New_Line;
end Show;
begin
Put ("Codepoint:");
Put (Wide_Wide_Character'Pos (Clef (1)), 10, 16);
New_Line;
Show (Str_8);
Show (Str_16);
Show (Str_8_New);
My_Str_8 := My_Convert (Str_16);
Show (My_Str_8);
if Str_8 = My_Str_8 then
Put_Line ("OK");
else
Put_Line ("Bug");
end if;
end UTFTest;
See also Bug 95953 / Bug 95959.
There's a mismatch between the 3rd byte of Str_8 and Str_8_New which causes the round-trip to fail. This seems a bug.
main.adb
with Ada.Text_IO; use Ada.Text_IO;
with Ada.Integer_Text_IO; use Ada.Integer_Text_IO;
with Ada.Strings.UTF_Encoding.Conversions;
use Ada.Strings.UTF_Encoding;
use Ada.Strings.UTF_Encoding.Conversions;
procedure Main is
-- UTF8 encoded Clef (U+1D11E)
-- (e.g.) https://unicode-table.com/en/1D11E/
Str_8 : constant UTF_8_String :=
Character'Val (16#F0#) &
Character'Val (16#9D#) &
Character'Val (16#84#) &
Character'Val (16#9E#);
Str_16 : constant UTF_16_Wide_String := Convert (Str_8);
Str_8_New : constant UTF_8_String := Convert (Str_16);
begin
for I in Str_8'Range loop
Put (Character'Pos (Str_8 (I)), 7, 16);
end loop;
New_Line (2);
for I in Str_16'Range loop
Put (Wide_Character'Pos (Str_16 (I)), 9, 16);
end loop;
New_Line (2);
for I in Str_8_New'Range loop
Put (Character'Pos (Str_8_New (I)), 7, 16);
end loop;
New_Line (2);
end Main;
output
$ ./main
16#F0# 16#9D# 16#84# 16#9E#
16#D834# 16#DD1E#
16#F0# 16#9D# 16#90# 16#9E#

Skipping calculation of somes primes when asking lot of primes

I just started to learn some ada code and would create my very own primes calculator.
To procress, I use one of most known method, which is :
"each primes is a result of 6 * x -+ 1 "
So this is my code :
with Ada.Text_IO, Ada.Integer_Text_IO ;
use Ada.Text_IO, Ada.Integer_Text_IO ;
procedure main is
count_prime : Integer := 0 ;
counter : Integer := 1 ;
wanted : Integer ;
iteration : Integer := 0 ;
testing : Integer := 0 ;
is_prime : Boolean ;
answer : Character ;
begin
loop
Put("Prime calculator") ;
New_line(2) ;
Put("Put 'p' to process") ;
New_Line(1);
Put("Put 'q' to quit") ;
New_Line(2) ;
Put(">> ") ;
Get(answer) ;
if answer = 'p' then
Put("Enter wanted primes :");
Get(wanted) ;
Skip_line ;
if wanted > 0 then
Put("2");
New_Line(1);
if wanted > 1 then
Put("3");
New_Line(1);
end if ;
if wanted > 2 then
count_prime := 2;
loop
if counter = 1 then
counter := 0 ;
iteration := iteration + 1 ;
testing := ( 6 * iteration ) - 1 ;
else
counter := 1 ;
testing := ( 6 * iteration ) + 1 ;
end if ;
is_prime := True ;
for i in 2..(testing-1) loop
if (testing rem i = 0) then
is_prime := False ;
end if ;
end loop;
if is_prime = True then
Put(testing);
New_Line(1);
count_prime := count_prime + 1 ;
end if ;
exit when count_prime = wanted;
end loop ;
end if;
Put("Ended") ;
else
Put("It's can't be a negative number");
end if ;
end if ;
New_Line(3);
exit when answer = 'q' ;
end loop ;
end main ;
I really know this is a basic, I mean ouh, extremely basic program. But I would just solve the problem I've asked :
with 'p' and 2 :
2
3
with 'p' and '7'
2
3
5
7
11
13
17
with 'p' and 1200
2
3
19
23
29
31
37
41
....
Where are gone all primes between 3 and 19 ?
You keep running the calculation in a cycle, but do not reset it's initial state. The loop that performs the calculation continues using values of iteration, counter and a few other variables from the previous run.
Either decompose the loop into a separate procedure, or at least surround it with declare block, e.g.:
declare
count_prime : Integer := 2;
counter : Integer := 1;
iteration : Integer := 0;
testing : Integer := 0;
is_prime : Boolean;
begin
loop
…
end loop;
end;
However, I'd strongly recommend decomposing into a separate procedure.
if wanted > 2 then
count_prime := 2;
-- you probably want to reset iteration here...
iteration := 0;
loop
if counter = 1 then

How to perform arithmetic contract operations on function taking in 2D array type as parameter in Ada

I have a function that should return the count of Islands found.
I name this function Count_Islands that takes in a parameter of
Map_Array of type Map, of which Map is an array of Islands.
Islands is an enumerator type with set of Land, Water.
I have the function specification in the .ads and the body in the
.adb
The problem I face now is how to proof that my function
Count_Islands'Result will be less than (X * Y)
I have tried: with post => Count_Islands'Result < X * Y
-- Whenever I ran prove all I got: medium: postcondition might
fail cannot prove Count_Islands'Result < X * Y
Function in .ads:
function Count_Islands(Map_Array : Map)
return Integer with Pre => Map_Array'Length /= 0,
Post => Count_Islands'Result < X * Y;
Function in .adb:
function Count_Islands(Map_Array : Map) return Integer
is
Visited_Array : Visited := (others => (others=> False));
Count : Integer := 0;
begin
if (Map_Array'Length = 0)then
return 0;
end if;
for i in X_Range loop
for j in Y_Range loop
if (Map_Array(i, j) = Land and then not Visited_Array(i,j)) then
Visited_Array := Visit_Islands(Map_Array, i, j,Visited_Array);
Count := Count + 1;
end if;
end loop;
end loop;
return Count;
end Count_Islands;
In a matrix of 4 * 5 for instance,i.e my X = 4 And Y = 5:
I expect the output result of an Islands(Lands) found to be 1 which is less than 4 * 5. But GNATprove cannot prove my initial code to analyze that,using Post => Count_Islands'Result < X * Y;
Is there any better way to prove this arithmetic? Thanks for your help.
As the example is not complete, I took the liberty to change it a little bit. You can prove the post condition by adding loop invariants. The program below proves in GNAT CE 2019:
main.adb
procedure Main with SPARK_Mode is
-- Limit the range of the array indices in order to prevent
-- problems with overflow, i.e.:
--
-- Pos'Last * Pos'Last <= Natural'Last
--
-- Hence, as Natural'Last = 2**31 - 1,
--
-- Pos'Last <= Sqrt (2**31 - 1) =approx. 46340
--
-- If Pos'Last >= 46341, then overflow problems might occur.
subtype Pos is Positive range 1 .. 46340;
type Map_Item is (Water, Land);
type Map is
array (Pos range <>, Pos range <>) of Map_Item;
type Visited is
array (Pos range <>, Pos range <>) of Boolean;
function Count_Islands (Map_Array : Map) return Natural with
Post => Count_Islands'Result <= Map_Array'Length (1) * Map_Array'Length (2);
-------------------
-- Count_Islands --
-------------------
function Count_Islands (Map_Array : Map) return Natural is
Visited_Array : Visited (Map_Array'Range (1), Map_Array'Range (2)) :=
(others => (others => False));
Count : Natural := 0;
begin
for I in Map_Array'Range (1) loop
pragma Loop_Invariant
(Count <= (I - Map_Array'First (1)) * Map_Array'Length (2));
for J in Map_Array'Range (2) loop
pragma Loop_Invariant
(Count - Count'Loop_Entry <= J - Map_Array'First (2));
if Map_Array(I, J) = Land and then not Visited_Array(I, J) then
Visited_Array (I, J) := True; -- Simplified
Count := Count + 1;
end if;
end loop;
end loop;
return Count;
end Count_Islands;
begin
null;
end Main;

SPARK Integer overflow check

I have the following program:
procedure Main with SPARK_Mode is
F : array (0 .. 10) of Integer := (0, 1, others => 0);
begin
for I in 2 .. F'Last loop
F (I) := F (I - 1) + F (I - 2);
end loop;
end Main;
If I run gnatprove, I get the following result, pointing to the + sign:
medium: overflow check might fail
Does this mean that F (I - 1) could be equal to Integer'Last, and adding anything to that would overflow? If so, then is it not clear from the flow of the program that this is impossible? Or do I need to specify this with a contract? If not, then what does it mean?
A counterexample shows that indeed gnatprove in this case worries about the edges of Integer:
medium: overflow check might fail (e.g. when F = (1 => -1, others => -2147483648) and I = 2)
Consider adding a loop invariant to your code. The following is an example from the book "Building High Integrity Applications with Spark".
procedure Copy_Into(Buffer : out Buffer_Type;
Source : in String) is
Characters_To_Copy : Buffer.Count_Type := Maximum_Buffer_Size;
begin
Buffer := (Others => ' '); -- Initialize to all blanks
if Source'Length < Characters_To_Copy then
Characters_To_Copy := Source'Length;
end if;
for Index in Buffer.Count_Type range 1..Characters_To_Copy loop
pragma Loop_Invariant
(Characters_To_Copy <= Source'Length and
Characters_To_Copy = Characters_To_Copy'Loop_Entry);
Buffer (Index) := Source(Source'First + (Index - 1));
end loop;
end Copy_Into;
This is already an old question, but I would like to add an answer anyway (just for future reference).
With the advancement of provers, the example as stated in the question now proves out-the-box in GNAT CE 2019 (i.e. no loop invariant needed). A somewhat more advanced example can also be proven:
main.adb
procedure Main with SPARK_Mode is
-- NOTE: The theoretical upper bound for N is 46 as
--
-- Fib (46) < 2**31 - 1 < Fib (47)
-- 1_836_311_903 < 2_147_483_647 < 2_971_215_073
-- NOTE: Proved with Z3 only. Z3 is pretty good in arithmetic. Additional
-- options for gnatprove:
--
-- --prover=Z3 --steps=0 --timeout=10 --report=all
type Seq is array (Natural range <>) of Natural;
function Fibonacci (N : Natural) return Seq with
Pre => (N in 2 .. 46),
Post => (Fibonacci'Result (0) = 0)
and then (Fibonacci'Result (1) = 1)
and then (for all I in 2 .. N =>
Fibonacci'Result (I) = Fibonacci'Result (I - 1) + Fibonacci'Result (I - 2));
---------------
-- Fibonacci --
---------------
function Fibonacci (N : Natural) return Seq is
F : Seq (0 .. N) := (0, 1, others => 0);
begin
for I in 2 .. N loop
F (I) := F (I - 1) + F (I - 2);
pragma Loop_Invariant
(for all J in 2 .. I =>
F (J) = F (J - 1) + F (J - 2));
-- NOTE: The loop invariant below helps the prover to proof the
-- absence of overflow. It "reminds" the prover that all values
-- from iteration 3 onwards are strictly monotonically increasing.
-- Hence, if absence of overflow is proven in this iteration,
-- then absence is proven for all previous iterations.
pragma Loop_Invariant
(for all J in 3 .. I =>
F (J) > F (J - 1));
end loop;
return F;
end Fibonacci;
begin
null;
end Main;
This loop invariant should work - since 2^(n-1) + 2^(n-2) < 2^n - but I can't convince the provers:
procedure Fibonacci with SPARK_Mode is
F : array (0 .. 10) of Natural := (0 => 0,
1 => 1,
others => 0);
begin
for I in 2 .. F'Last loop
pragma Loop_Invariant
(for all J in F'Range => F (J) < 2 ** J);
F (I) := F (I - 1) + F (I - 2);
end loop;
end Fibonacci;
You can probably convince the provers with a bit of manual assistance (showing how 2^(n-1) + 2^(n-2) = 2^(n-2) * (2 + 1) = 3/4 * 2^n < 2^n).

pl/sql find greatest common factor from a table

I am trying to find the greatest common factor for some numbers that i have put into a table. So far I have the function that is suppose to calculate the gcf
CREATE FUNCTION gcd (x INTEGER, y INTEGER) RETURN INTEGER AS
ans INTEGER;
BEGIN
IF (y <= x) AND (x MOD y = 0) THEN
ans := y;
ELSIF x < y THEN
ans := gcd(y, x);
ELSE
ans := gcd(y, x MOD y);
END IF;
RETURN ans;
END;
and here I create and random populate my table
DROP TABLE numere
/
CREATE TABLE numbers (number NUMBER(3) NOT NULL)
/
set serveroutput on
DECLARE
number NUMBER(3);
cursor c1 is
SELECT * FROM note;
BEGIN
FOR i IN 1 .. 10 LOOP
number:=dbms_random.value(20,100);
insert into numbers values(number);
end loop;
commit;
END;
/
How can I integrate the gcf into my code? I want to display the numbers followed by their gcf.
I am not sure about your gcd function. It seems to me not working. There are many on the web. This is one of them:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION find_gcd (
p_n1 IN POSITIVE
, p_n2 IN POSITIVE
)
RETURN POSITIVE
IS
l_n1 POSITIVE := p_n1;
l_n2 POSITIVE := p_n2;
BEGIN
WHILE NOT (l_n1 = l_n2)
LOOP
CASE SIGN(l_n1 - l_n2)
WHEN +1
THEN l_n1 := l_n1 - l_n2;
ELSE l_n2 := l_n2 - l_n1;
END CASE;
END LOOP;
RETURN (l_n1);
END find_gcd;
/
You can simply amend your PL/SQL block to call the gcd function and print out the results (I here assumed you want to find the gcd for each number and the following number in your table, so I used LEAD function):
DECLARE
lv_number NUMBER(3);
lv_gcd INTEGER;
BEGIN
FOR i IN 1 .. 10 LOOP
lv_number:=dbms_random.value(20,100);
insert into numbers values(lv_number);
end loop;
commit;
FOR i in (select COL_VAL, lead(COL_VAL) over (order by rowid) nxt_val from numbers)
LOOP
lv_gcd := find_gcd(i.COL_VAL, i.nxt_val);
DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE('GCD for '||TO_CHAR(i.COL_VAL)||' and '|| TO_CHAR(i.nxt_val) ||' is '||TO_CHAR(lv_gcd));
END LOOP;
END;
/

Resources