Advertisement

A comparison of MDG and HOL for hardware verification

  • Sofiène Tahar
  • Paul Curzon
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1125)

Abstract

Interactive formal proof and automated verification based on decision graphs are two contrasting formal hardware verification techniques. In this paper, we compare these two approaches. In particular we consider HOL and MDG. The former is an interactive theorem proving system based on higher-order logic, while the latter is an automatic system based on Multiway Decision Graphs. As the basis for our comparison we have used both systems to independently verify a fabricated ATM communications chip: the Fairisle 4 by 4 switch fabric.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Bryant. Graph-based Algorithms for Boolean Function Manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-35(8):677–691, August 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Chen, M. Yamazaki and M. Fujita. Bug Identification of a Real Chip Design by Symbolic Model Checking. In Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Circuits And Systems, pages 132–136, June 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Corella, Z. Zhou, X. Song, M. Langevin and E. Cerny. Multiway Decision Graphs for Automated Hardware Verification. Formal Methods in System Design, To appear. Available as IBM research report RC19676(87224), July 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Curzon. Tracking Design Changes with Formal Machine-checked Proof. The Computer Journal, 38(2):91–100, July 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Curzon and I.M. Leslie. A Case Study on Design for Provability. In Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Engineering of Complex Computér Systems, pages 59–62, IEEE Computer Society Press, November 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M.J.C. Gordon. HOL: A Proof Generating System for Higher-order Logic. In G. Birtwistle and P.A. Subrahmanyam, editors, VLSI Specification, Verification and Synthesis, pages 73–128. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. 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. 8.
    J.M.J. Herbert. Case Study of the Cambridge Fast Ring ECL Chip using HOL. Technical Report 123, University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory, February 1988.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Langevin, S. Tahar, Z. Zhou, X. Song and E. Cerny. Behavioral Verification of an ATM Switch Fabric using Implicit Abstract State Enumeration. In Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Computer Design, IEEE Computer Society Press, October 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    I.M. Leslie and D.R. McAuley. Fairisle: An ATM Network for the Local Area. ACM Communication Review, 19(4):327–336, September 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    K.L. McMillan. Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Schneider and T. Kropf. Verifying Hardware Correctness by Combining Theorem Proving and Model Checking. In J. Alves-Foss, editor, International Workshop on Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving and Its Applications: B-Track: Short Presentations, pages 89–104, August 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 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. of the Great Lakes Symp. on VLSI, pages 106–111, IEEE Computer Society Press, March 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sofiène Tahar
    • 1
  • Paul Curzon
    • 2
  1. 1.IRO DepartmentUniversity of MontrealCanada
  2. 2.Computer LaboratoryUniversity of CambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations