Skip to main content

Equivalence Checking Between System-Level Descriptions by Identifying Potential Cut-Points

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Communications, Signal Processing, and Systems (CSPS 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering ((LNEE,volume 571))

  • 65 Accesses

Abstract

Symbolic simulation is one of the most important equivalence checking method, but it can not deal with large designs due to the limited capacity of BDD and SAT/SMT. Cut-points technique is used with symbolic simulation to verify the large size of designs. However, the existing approaches need the mapping information, which is not easily obtained in the verification process. This paper presents a new equivalence checking method against system-level descriptions without mapping information of variables. Our method first randomly simulate the designs under verification to generate potential cut-points set. If some output variables do not belong to the potential cut-points set, return not equivalent. Second, our method select and remove the potential cut-point pair from the set and slice the program according to it. Third, we symbolically simulate the slice and compare the results. If the corresponding potential cut-points are really equivalent, they are put into equivalent set. Finally, the process is repeated until the potential cut-points set is empty or some outputs are not equivalent. Our method can check the equivalence of designs without mapping information and decrease the verification size. The experimental results shows the effectiveness and efficiency of our proposed method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 629.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 799.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 799.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bombieri N, Fummi F, Pravadelli G (2008) RTL-TLM equivalence checking based on simulation. In: Proceedings of design and test symposium (EWDTS), pp 214–217

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hu J, Li T, Li S (2015) Equivalence checking between SLM and TLM using coverage directed simulation. Front Comput Sci (FCS) 9(6):934–943

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gro\(\upbeta \)e D, Gro\(\upbeta \) M, Khne U, Drechsler R (2011) Simulation-based equivalence checking between System C models at different levels of abstraction. In: Great lakes symposium on VLSI, pp 223–228

    Google Scholar 

  4. Shankar S, Fujita M (2008) Rule-based approaches for equivalence checking of SpecC programs. In: ACM/IEEE international conference on formal methods and models for codesign, pp 39–48

    Google Scholar 

  5. Nishihara T, Ando D, Matsumoto T, Fujita M (2007) ExSDG: unified dependence graph representation of hardware design from system level down to RTL for formal analysis and verification. In: Proceedings international workshop of logic and synthesis, pp 83–90

    Google Scholar 

  6. Matsumoto T, Nishihara T, Kojima Y, Fujita M (2009) Equivalence checking of high-level designs based on symbolic simulation. In: International conference on communications, circuits and systems, pp 1129–1133

    Google Scholar 

  7. Weiser M (1982) Programmers use slices when debugging. Commun ACM 25(7):446–452

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tip F (1994) A survey of program slicing techniques, CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Horwitz S, Reps T, Binkley D (1990) Interprocedural slicing using dependence graphs. ACM Trans Programm Lang Syst 12(1):26–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cytron R, Ferrante J, Rosen BK, Wegman MN, Kenneth Zadeck F (1991) Efficiently computing static single assignment form and the control dependence graph. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst 13(4):451–490

    Google Scholar 

  11. https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pycparser

  12. http://frama-c.com

  13. de Moura L, Bjorner N (2008) Z3: an efficient SMT solver, international conference on Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems, pp 337–340

    Google Scholar 

  14. http://computing.ece.vt.edu/mhsiao/hlsyn.html

  15. Gupta S, Dutt N, Gupta R, Nicolau A (2003) Spark: a high-level synthesis framework for applying parallelizing compiler transformations. In: International conference on VLSI design, pp 461–466

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61902421).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jian Hu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Hu, J., Wang, G., Chen, G., Kang, Y., Wang, L., Ouyang, J. (2020). Equivalence Checking Between System-Level Descriptions by Identifying Potential Cut-Points. In: Liang, Q., Wang, W., Liu, X., Na, Z., Jia, M., Zhang, B. (eds) Communications, Signal Processing, and Systems. CSPS 2019. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 571. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9409-6_159

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9409-6_159

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-9408-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-9409-6

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics