A Framework for Verification of SystemC Designs Using SystemC Waiting State Automata

  • Nesrine Harrath
  • Bruno Monsuez
  • Kamel Barkaoui
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 263)


The SystemC waiting-state automaton is a compositional abstract formal model for verifying properties of SystemC at the transaction level within a delta-cycle: the smallest simulation unit time in SystemC. In this chapter, how to extract automata for SystemC components where we distinguish between threads and methods in SystemC. Then, we propose an approach based on a combination of symbolic execution and computing fixed points via predicate abstraction to infer relations between predicates generated during symbolic execution. Finally, we define how to apply model checking to prove the correctness of the abstract analysis.


SystemC Automata Symbolic execution Predicate abstraction Formal verification Model checking 

Supplementary material


  1. 1.
    Main page of the SystemC Initiative.
  2. 2.
    Drechsler, R., Große, D.: Reachability analysis for formal verification of SystemC. In: Euromicro Symposium on Digital Systems Design, pp. 337–340 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Drechsler, R., Große, D.: Formal verification of LTL formulas for SystemC designs. In: IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, vol. 25, pp. 45–248 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kroening, D., Sharygina, N.: Formal verification of SystemC by automatic hardware/software partitioning. In: the Third ACM and IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Co-Design, pp. 101–110 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shyamasundar, R.K., Doucet, F., Gupta, R., Kruger, I.H.: Compositional Reactive Semantics of SystemC and Verification in RuleBase. In: Proceedings of the GM R &D Workshop, pp. 227–243. Bangalore, India (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harrath, N., Monsuez, B.: Compositional Reactive Semantics of System-Level Designs Written in SystemC and Formal Verification with Predicate Abstraction. accepted in the International Journal of Critical Computer-Based Systems (IJCCBS) (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Plotkin, G.D.: A structural approach to operational semantics. Logic Algebraic Program. 60–61, pp. 17–139 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Havelund, K., Pressburger, T.: Model checking Java programs using Java pathfinder. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer (STTT) 2(4), 366–381 (2000)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mueller, W., Ruf, J., Rosenstiel, W.: SystemC Methodologies and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang, Y., Védrine, F., Monsuez, B.: SystemC waiting-state automata. In: On First International Workshop on Verification and Evaluation of Computer and Communication Systems, pp. 5–6. eWiC, BCS (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harrath, N., Monsuez, B.: Timed SystemC waiting-state automata. In: On Third International Workshop on Verification and Evaluation of Computer and Communication Systems. eWiC, BCS (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    King, J.C.: Symbolic execution and program testing. Commun. ACM (Assoc. Comput. Mach.) 19(7), 385–394 (1976)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flanagan, C., Qadeer, S.: Predicate abstraction for software verification. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles and Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 191–202 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bubel, R., \(H\ddot{a} hnle\), R., Weiße, B.: Abstract interpretation of symbolic execution with explit state updates. In: On the International Symposia on Formal Methods for Components and Objects, pp. 247–277 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Talupur, M., Wang, D.: High level verification of control intensive systems using predicate abstraction. In: Proceedings of First ACM and IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Co-Design, IEEE Computer, Society, 25 Sept (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chaki, S., Clarke, E., Große, A., Strichman, O.: Abstraction with Minimum Predicates. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: Transition predicate abstraction and fair termination. In: Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL) (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dijkstra, E.W.: A Discipline of Programming. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leino, K.R.M., Logozzo, F.: Loop invariants on demand. In: Yi, K. (ed.) Proceedings, 3rd Asian Symposium on Programming languages and Systems (APLAS). 3780 of LNCS, pp. 119–134 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schmitt, P.H., Weiß, B.: Inferring invariants by symbolic execution. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Verification, Workshop (VERIFY’07), pp. 195–210 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clarke, E., Grumberg, I., Peled, D.: Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    ALUR, R., DILL, D.: Automata for modeling real-time systems. In: Proceedings of 17th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP’90). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 443, pp. 322–335. Springer, Berlin (1990)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    ALUR, R., DILL, D.: A theory of timed automata. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 126(2), 183–235 (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Große, D., Dreschsler, R.: CheckSyC: An efficient property checker for RTL SystemC designs. In: IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, pp. 4167–4170 (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moy, M., Maraninchi, F., Maillet-Contoz, L.: LusSy: A Toolbox for the analysis of systems-on-a-chip at the transactional level. In: IEEE ACSD, pp. 26–35 (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Drechsler, R., Große, D.: CheckSyC: An Efficient Property Checker for RTL SystemC Designs. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), vol. 4, pp. 4167–4170 (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Herber, P.: A Framework for Automated HW/SW Co-Verification of SystemC Designs using Timed Automata. Berlin, 145 (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gawanmeh, A., Habibi, A., Tahar, S.: An executable operational semantics for SystemC using abstract state machines. Technical Report, Concordia University, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, pp. 24 (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Habibi, A., Moinudeen, H., Tahar, S.: Generating finite state machines from systemc. In: Gielen, G.G.E. (ed.) DATE Designers’ Forum. European Design and Automation Association, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 6–81 (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Karlsson, D., Eles, P., Peng, Z.: Formal verification of SystemC designs using a petri-net based representation. In: Proceeding on the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe, pp. 1228–1233 (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maillet-Contoz, L., Moy, M., Maraninchi, F.: Lussy: a toolbox for the analysis of systems on-a-chip at the transactional level. In: Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design, pp. 26–35 (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Karlsson, D., Eles, P., Peng, Z.: Formal verification of SystemC designs using a petrinet based representation. In: Proceedings of Design, Automation and Test in Europe, pp. 1228–1233 (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Traulsen, C, Cornet, J., Moy, M., Maraninchi, F.: A SystemC/TLM semantics in promela and its possible applications. In: SPIN, pp. 204–222 (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Herber, P., Fellmuth, J., Glesner, S.: Model checking SystemC designs using timed automata. In: IEEE/ACM/IFIP International Conference on Hardware/Software Codesign and System, Synthesis, pp. 131–136 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nesrine Harrath
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bruno Monsuez
    • 1
  • Kamel Barkaoui
    • 2
  1. 1.ENSTA ParisTechDepartment of Electronics and Computer EngineeringPalaiseauFrance
  2. 2.CNAM ParisVESPA/CEDRICParisFrance

Personalised recommendations