Background

Chapter

Abstract

We envision a design methodology that is built around advances in high-level design and verification to improve the quality and time to design microelectronic systems. In this chapter, we will present a brief overview of the three different parts of high-level verificationas shown in Fig. 1.1 on which the verification algorithms are applied. We first present in Sect. 2.1 and in Sect. 2.2 a description of high-level designs and RTL designs respectively. We then in Sect. 2.3 give a brief introduction of high-level synthesis. In the next two sections we introduce the concept of model checking, and our program representation scheme that is used throughout the book.

References

  1. 2.
    Adve, S.V., Hill, M.D., Miller, B.P., Netzer, R.H.B.: Detecting data races on weak memory systems. SIGARCH Computer Architecture News 19(3), 234–243 (1991). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/115953.115976
  2. 5.
    Armando, A., Mantovani, J., Platania, L.: Bounded model checking of software using smt solvers instead of sat solvers. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 11(1), 69–83 (2009). DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10009-008-0091-0 Google Scholar
  3. 6.
    Ashar, P., Bhattacharya, S., Raghunathan, A., Mukaiyama, A.: Verification of RTL generated from scheduled behavior in a high-level synthesis flow. In: ICCAD ’98: Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, pp. 517–524 (1998). URL citeseer.ist.psu.edu/ashar98verification.html
  4. 7.
    Ashar, P., Raghunathan, A., Gupta, A., Bhattacharya, S.: Verification of scheduling in the presence of loops using uninterpreted symbolic simulation. In: ICCD ’99: Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE International Conference on Computer Design, pp. 458–466. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    Ball, T., Bounimova, E., Cook, B., Levin, V., Lichtenberg, J., McGarvey, C., Ondrusek, B., Rajamani, S.K., Ustuner, A.: Thorough static analysis of device drivers. In: EuroSys ’06: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGOPS/EuroSys European Conference on Computer Systems 2006, pp. 73–85. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2006). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1217935.1217943
  6. 9.
    Ball, T., Majumdar, R., Millstein, T., Rajamani, S.: Automatic predicate abstraction of C programs. In: PLDI ’01: Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGPLAN conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (2001). URL citeseer.ist.psu.edu/ball01automatic.html
  7. 10.
    Ball, T., Naik, M., Rajamani, S.K.: From symptom to cause: localizing errors in counterexample traces. In: Proceedings of the 30th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 97–105 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    Barnett, M., yuh Evan Chang, B., Deline, R., Jacobs, B., Leino, K.R.: Boogie: A modular reusable verifier for object-oriented programs. In: Formal Methods for Components and Objects: 4th International Symposium, FMCO 2005, volume 4111 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 364–387. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    Benton, N.: Simple relational correctness proofs for static analyses and program transformations. In: Proceedings of the 31st ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 13.
    Bertot, Y., Casteran, P.: Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development. Springer-Verlag (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: The software model checker blast: Applications to software engineering. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 9(5), 505–525 (2007). DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10009-007-0044-z Google Scholar
  12. 15.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Fujita, M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking using sat procedures instead of bdds. In: DAC ’99: Proceedings of the 36th ACM/IEEE conference on Design automation, pp. 317–320. ACM, New York, NY, USA (1999). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/309847.309942
  13. 16.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without bdds. In: TACAS ’99: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems, pp. 193–207. Springer-Verlag, London, UK (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 17.
    Blank, C.: Formal verification of register binding. In: WAVE ’00: Proceedings of the Workshop on Advances in Verification (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 18.
    Borrione, D., Dushina, J., Pierre, L.: A compositional model for the functional verification of high-level synthesis results. IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems 8(5), 526–530 (2000). DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/92.894157 Google Scholar
  16. 19.
    Boyer, R., Moore, J.: A Computational Logic. Academic Press (1979)Google Scholar
  17. 23.
    Burch, J., Clarke, E., McMillan, K., Dill, D., Hwang, L.: Symbolic Model Checking: 1020 States and Beyond. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 1–33. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, D.C. (1990). URL citeseer.ist.psu.edu/burch90symbolic.html
  18. 27.
    Cai, L., Gajski, D.: Transaction Level Modeling: an overview. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Hardware-Software Codesign and System Synthesis (CODES+ISSS) (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 32.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching-time temporal logic. In: Logic of Programs, Workshop, pp. 52–71. Springer-Verlag, London, UK (1982)Google Scholar
  20. 33.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P.: Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 8(2), 244–263 (1986)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 52.
    Emerson, E.A., Clarke, E.M.: Characterizing correctness properties of parallel programs using fixpoints. In: Proceedings of the 7th Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, pp. 169–181. Springer-Verlag, London, UK (1980)Google Scholar
  22. 57.
    Flanagan, C., Godefroid, P.: Dynamic partial-order reduction for model checking software. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 70.
    Godefroid, P.: Partial-order methods for the verification of concurrent systems: an approach to the state-explosion problem. Ph.D. thesis, Univerite De Liege (1995). URL citeseer.ist.psu.edu/godefroid95partialorder.html
  24. 71.
    Godefroid, P.: Model checking for programming languages using VeriSoft. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (1997)Google Scholar
  25. 78.
    Grötker, T., Liao, S., Martin, G., Swan, S.: System Design with SystemC. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 84.
    Gupta, S., Dutt, N., Gupta, R., Nicolau, A.: Spark: A high-level synthesis framework for applying parallelizing compiler transformations. In: International. Conference on VLSI Design (2003). URL citeseer.ist.psu.edu/gupta03spark.html
  27. 88.
    Hatcliff, J., Dwyer, M.B., Zheng, H.: Slicing software for model construction. Higher Order Symbolic Computation 13(4), 315–353 (2000). DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026599015809
  28. 94.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The model checker SPIN. Software Engineering 23(5), 279–295 (1997). URL citeseer.ist.psu.edu/holzmann97model.html Google Scholar
  29. 101.
    Jr., E.M.C., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. The MIT Press (1999)Google Scholar
  30. 136.
    Lin, Y.L.: Recent developments in high-level synthesis. ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems. 2(1), 2–21 (1997). URL citeseer.ist.psu.edu/lin97recent.html
  31. 169.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: SFCS ’77: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 46–57. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (1977). DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1977.32
  32. 173.
    Queille, J.P., Sifakis, J.: Specification and verification of concurrent systems in cesar. In: Proceedings of the 5th Colloquium on International Symposium on Programming, pp. 337–351. Springer-Verlag, London, UK (1982)Google Scholar
  33. 184.
    Sen, A., Garg, V.K.: Formal verification of simulation traces using computation slicing. IEEE Transactions on Computers (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 192.
    Swan, S.: Systemc transaction level models and rtl verification. In: DAC ’06: Proceedings of the 43rd annual conference on Design automation, pp. 90–92. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2006). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1146909.1146937
  35. 203.
    Walker, R., Camposano, R.: A Survey of High-Level Synthesis Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, USA (1991)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Synopsys Inc.HillsboroUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations