Three Approaches to Hardware Verification: HOL, MDG, and VIS Compared
There exist a wide range of hardware verification tools, some based on interactive theorem proving and other more automated tools based on decision diagrams. In this paper, we compare three different verification systems covering the spectrum of today’s verification technology. In particular, we consider HOL, MDG and VIS. HOL is an interactive theorem proving system based on higher-order logic. VIS is an automatic system based on ROBDDs and integrating verification with simulation and synthesis. The MDG system is an intermediate approach based on Multiway Decision Graphs providing automation while accommodating abstract data sorts, uninterpreted functions and rewriting. As the basis for our comparison we used all three systems to independently verify a fabricated ATM communications chip: the Fairisle 4×4 switch fabric.
KeywordsModel Check Equivalence Check Asynchronous Transfer Mode Safety Property Abstract State Machine
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.R. Brayton et. al. VIS: A System for Verification and Synthesis In R. Alur and T. Henzinger, eds, Computer Aided Verification, LNCS 1102, 428–432, Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
- 4.P. Curzon and I.M. Leslie. Improving Hardware Designs whilst Simplifying their Proof. Designing Correct Circuits, Workshops in Comp., Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
- 5.K. Edgcombe. The Qudos Quick Chip User Guide. Qudos Limited.Google Scholar
- 6.E. Garcez and W. Rosenstiel. The Verification of an ATM Switching Fabric using the HSIS Tool. In IX Brazilian Symp. on the Design of Integrated Circuits, 1996.Google Scholar
- 7.M.J.C. Gordon and T.F. Melham. Introduction to HOL: A Theorem Proving Environment for Higher-order Logic. Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
- 8.L. Jakubiec, S. Coupet-Grimal, and P. Curzon. A Comparison of the Coq and HOL Proof Systems for Specifying Hardware. In E. Gunter and A. Felty, eds, Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics: Short Presentations, 63–78, 1997.Google Scholar
- 10.D.E. Long. Model Checking, Abstraction and Compositional Verification. Ph.D thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, July 1993.Google Scholar
- 11.J. Lu and S. Tahar. Practical Approaches to the Automatic Verification of an ATM Switch Fabric using VIS. In Proc. IEEE Great Lakes Symp. on VLSI, 368–373, 1998.Google Scholar
- 12.K. Schneider and T. Kropf. Verifying Hardware Correctness by Combining Theorem Proving and Model Checking. In J. Alves-Foss, editor, Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving and Its Applications: Short Presentations, 89–104, 1995.Google Scholar
- 13.S. Tahar, Z. Zhou, X. Song, E. Cerny, and M. Langevin. Formal Verification of an ATM Switch Fabric using Multiway Decision Graphs. In Proc. IEEE Great Lakes Symp. on VLSI, 106–111, 1996.Google Scholar