Towards functional verifying a family of systemC TLMs

  • Tun LiEmail author
  • Jun Ye
  • Qingping Tan
Research Article


It is often the case that in the development of a system-on-a-chip (SoC) design, a family of SystemC transaction level models (TLM) is created. TLMs in the same family often share common functionalities but differ in their timing, implementation, configuration and performance in various SoC developing phases. In most cases, all the TLMs in a family must be verified for the follow-up design activities. In our previous work, we proposed to call such family TLM product line (TPL), and proposed feature-oriented (FO) design methodology for efficient TPL development. However, developers can only verify TLM in a family one by one, which causes large portion of duplicated verification overhead. Therefore, in our proposed methodology, functional verification of TPL has become a bottleneck. In this paper, we proposed a novel TPL verification method for FO designs. In our method, for the given property, we can exponentially reduce the number of TLMs to be verified by identifying mute-feature-modules (MFM), which will avoid duplicated verification. The proposed method is presented in informal and formal way, and the correctness of it is proved. The theoretical analysis and experimental results on a real design show the correctness and efficiency of the proposed method.


system-on-a-chip transaction level model SystemC feature-oriented functional verification 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFB1004202) and by Laboratory of Software Engineering for Complex Systems.

Supplementary material

11704_2018_8254_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (266 kb)
Toward functional verifying a family of systemC TLMs


  1. 1.
    Hu J, Li T, Li S, Equivalence checking between SLM and TLM using coverage directed simulation. Frontiers of Computer Science, 2015, 9(6): 934–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li T, Guo Y, Liu W, Tang M. Translation validation of scheduling in high level synthesis. In: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Great Lakes Symposium on VLSI. 2013, 101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu W, Wang R, Fu X, Wang J, Dong W, Mao X. Counterexamplepreserving reduction for symbolic model checking. Journal of Applied Mathematics, 2014, 2014: 1–13Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang L, Qu W, Huo Y, Guo Y, Li S. An SAT-based method to multithreaded program verification for mobile crowdsourcing networks. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 2018, 2018: 59–66Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ye J, Li T, Tan Q. The application of aspectual feature module in the development and verification of SystemC models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Forum on Specification and Design Languages. 2009, 1–6Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ye J, Tan Q, Li T. Feature-oriented refactoring proposal for transaction level models in SoCLib. In: Proceeding of 2010 Forum on Specification and Design Languages. 2010, 22–27Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ye J, Tan Q, Li T. Towards the Development of a Set of Transaction Level Models–a Feature-Oriented Approach. System Specification and Design Languages. New York: Springer, 2012, 143–156Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Apel S, Leich T, Rosenmuller M, Saake G. FeatureC++: on the symbiosis of feature-oriented and aspect-oriented programming. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering. 2005, 125–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ziadi T, Hélouët L, Jézéquel J M. Towards a UML profile for software product lines. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Product-Family Engineering. 2003, 129–139Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischbein D, Uchitel S, Braberman V A. A foundation for behavioural conformance in software product line architectures. In: Proceedings of the ISSTA 2006 Workshop on Role of Software Architecture for Testing and Analysis. 2006, 39–48Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fantechi A, Gnesi S. Formal modeling for product families engineering. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference on Software Product Lines. 2008, 193–202Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Asirelli P, Beek MH, Gnesi S, Fantechi A. Deontic logics for modeling behavioural variability. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems. 2009, 71–76Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Classen A, Heymans P, Schobbens P Y, Legay A, Raskin J F. Model checking lots of systems: efficient verification of temporal properties in software product lines. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering. 2010, 335–344Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fisler K, Krishnamurthi S. Modular verification of collaboration-based software designs. In: Proceedings of European Software Engineering Conference and ACM International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. 2001, 152–163Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holzmann G J. The SPIN Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional, 2004Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cornet J. Separation of functional and non-functional aspects in transactional level models of systems-on-chip. Grenoble INP Group, 2008Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clements P, Northrop L. Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. 3rd ed. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional, 2001Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Helmstetter C, Ponsini O. A comparison of two SystemC/TLM semantics for formal verification. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Co-Design. 2008, 59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ponsini O, Serwe W. A schedulerless semantics of TLM models written in SystemC via translation into LOTOS. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Formal Methods. 2008, 278–293Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moy M. Techniques and tools for the verification of systems-on-a-chip at the transaction level. Institute National Polytechnigue de Grenoble-INPG, 2005Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moy M, Maraninchi F, Maillet-Contoz L. LusSy: an open tool for the analysis of systems-on-a-chip at the transaction level. Design Automation for Embedded Systems, 2005, 10(21): 73–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karlsson D, Eles P, Peng Z. Formal verification of SystemC designs using a petri-net based representation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe. 2006, 1228–1233Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kroening D, Sharygina N. Formal verification of SystemC by automatic hardware/software partitioning. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Co-Design. 2005, 101–110Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Traulsen C, Cornet J, Moy M, Maraninchi F. A SystemC/TLM semantics in Promela and its possible applications. In: Proceedings of the International SPIN Workshop on Model Checking Software. 2007, 204–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Habibi A, Ahmed A, Mohamed O A, Tahar S. On the design and verification methodology of the look-aside interface. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe. 2004, 290–295Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Patel H D, Shukla S K. Model-driven validation of SystemC designs. In: Proceedings of the 44th ACM/IEEE Annual Design Automation Conference. 2007, 29–34Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Peled D A, Wilke T. Stutter-invariant temporal properties are expressible without the next-time operator. Information Processing Letters, 1997, 63(5): 243–246MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li H C, Krishnamurthi S, Fisler K. Verifying cross-cutting features as open systems. In: Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. 2002, 89–98Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li H C, Krishnamurthi S, Fisler K. Modular Verification of open features using three-valued model checking. Automated Software Engineering, 2005, 12(3): 349–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Blundell C, Fisler K, Krishnamurthi S, Hentenryck P V. Parameterized interfaces for open system verification of product lines. In: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. 2004, 258–267Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thang N T, Katayama T. Specification and verification of intercomponent constraints in CTL. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 2006, 31(2): 81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    He F, Gao Y, Yin L. Efficient software product-line model checking using induction and a SAT solver. Frontiers of Computer Science, 2018, 12(2): 264–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Michelli G D. Synthesis and Optimization of Digital Circuits. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 1994Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of ComputerNational University of Defense TechnologyChangshaChina
  2. 2.Laboratory of Software Engineering for Complex SystemsChangshaChina
  3. 3.Jiangnan Institute of Computing TechnologyWuxiChina

Personalised recommendations