Advertisement

Debugging Contradictory Constraints in Constraint-Based Random Simulation

  • Daniel GroßeEmail author
  • Robert Wille
  • Robert Siegmund
  • Rolf Drechsler
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 36)

Abstract

Constraint-based random simulation is state-of-the-art in verification of multi-million gate industrial designs. This method is based on stimulus generation by constraint solving. The resulting stimuli will particularly cover corner case test scenarios which are usually hard to identify manually by the verification engineer. Consequently, constraint-based random simulation will catch corner case bugs that would remain undetected otherwise. Therefore, the quality of design verification is increased significantly. However, in the process of constraint specification for a specific test scenario, the verification engineer is faced with the problem of over-constraining, i.e. the overall constraint specified for a test scenario has no solution. In this case the root cause of the contradiction has to be identified and resolved. Given the complexity of constraints used to describe test scenarios, this can be a very time-consuming process.

In this chapter we propose a fully automated contradiction analysis method. Our method determines all “nonrelevant” constraints and computes all reasons that lead to the over-constraining. Thus, we pinpoint the verification engineer to exactly the sets of constraints that have to be considered to resolve the over-constraining. Experiments have been conducted in a real-life SystemC-based verification environment at AMD Dresden Design Center. They demonstrate a significant reduction of the constraint contradiction debug time.

Keywords

Constraint-based random simulation Contradiction Debugging SystemC verification library 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R.R. Bakker, F. Dikker, F. Tempelman, and P.M. Wognum. Diagnosing and solving over-determined constraint satisfaction problems. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 276–281, 1993. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Bergeron. Writing Testbenches Using SystemVerilog. Springer, Berlin, 2006. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R.E. Bryant. Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. on Comp., 35(8):677–691, 1986. zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Dechter, K. Kask, E. Bin, and R. Emek. Generating random solutions for constraint satisfaction problems. In Eighteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 15–21, 2002. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Goldberg and Y. Novikov. Verification of proofs of unsatisfiability for CNF formulas. In Design, Automation and Test in Europe, pages 10886–10891, 2003. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Große, R. Ebendt, and R. Drechsler. Improvements for constraint solving in the SystemC verification library. In ACM Great Lakes Symposium on VLSI, pages 493–496, 2007. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Huang. Mup: a minimal unsatisfiability prover. In ASP Design Automation Conf., pages 432–437, 2005. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    IEEE Std. 1666. IEEE Standard SystemC Language Reference Manual, 2005. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    IEEE Std. 1800. IEEE SystemVerilog, 2005. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C.N. Ip and S. Swan. A tutorial introduction on the new SystemC verification standard. White paper, 2003. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M.A. Iyer. Race: A word-level ATPG-based constraints solver system for smart random simulation. In Int’l Test Conf., pages 299–308, 2003. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. Kitchen and A. Kuehlmann. Stimulus generation for constrained random simulation. In Int’l Conf. on CAD, pages 258–265, 2007. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M.H. Liffiton and K.A. Sakallah. On finding all minimally unsatisfiable subformulas. In Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, pages 173–186, 2005. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M.N. Mneimneh, I. Lynce, Z.S. Andraus, J.P. Marques-Silva, and K.A. Sakallah. A branch and bound algorithm for extracting smallest minimal unsatisfiable formulas. In Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, pages 467–474, 2005. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Y. Oh, M. Mneimneh, Z. Andraus, K. Sakallah, and I. Markov. Amuse: A minimally-unsatisfiable subformula extractor. In Design Automation Conf., pages 518–523, 2004. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Petit, J.-C. Régin, and C. Bessière. Specific filtering algorithms for over-constrained problems. In International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, pages 451–463, 2001. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Rose and S. Swan. SCV randomization version 1.0. 2003. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    F. Somenzi. CUDD: CU Decision Diagram Package Release 2.3.0. University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, 1998. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Synopsys Inc., CoWare Inc., and Frontier Design Inc. Functional Specification for SystemC 2.0. http://www.systemc.org.
  20. 20.
    SystemC Verification Working Group. SystemC Verification Standard Specification Version 1.0e. http://www.systemc.org.
  21. 21.
    J. Yuan, A. Aziz, C. Pixley, and K. Albin. Simplifying boolean constraint solving for random simulation-vector generation. IEEE Trans. on CAD of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 23(3):412–420, 2004. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Yuan, C. Pixley, and A. Aziz. Constraint-Based Verification. Springer, Berlin, 2006. zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Yuan, K. Shultz, C. Pixley, H. Miller, and A. Aziz. Modeling design constraints and biasing in simulation using BDDs. In Int’l Conf. on CAD, pages 584–590, 1999. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    L. Zhang and S. Malik. Validating SAT solvers using an independent resolution-based checker: Practical implementations and other applications. In Design, Automation and Test in Europe, pages 10880–10885, 2003. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Große
    • 1
    Email author
  • Robert Wille
  • Robert Siegmund
  • Rolf Drechsler
  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations