Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cohesive Coverage Management: Simulation Meets Formal Methods

  • Published:
Journal of Electronic Testing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It has been advocated by many experts in design verification that the key to successful verification convergence lies in developing the verification plan with adequate formal rigor. Traditionally, the verification plans for simulation and formal property verification (FPV) are developed in different ways, using different formalisms, and with different coverage goals. In this paper, we propose a framework where the difference between formal properties and simulation test points is diluted by using methods for translating one form of the specification to the other. This allows us to reuse simulation coverage to facilitate formal verification and to reuse proven formal properties to cover simulation test points. We also propose the use of inline assertions in procedural (possibly randomized) test benches, and show that it facilitates the use of hybrid verification techniques between simulation and bounded model checking. We propose the use of promising combinations of formal methods presented in our earlier papers to shape a hierarchical verification flow where simulation and formal methods aim to cover a common design intent specification. The proposed flow is demonstrated using a detailed case study of the ARM AMBA verification benchmark. We believe that the methods presented in this work will stimulate new thought processes and ultimately lead to wider adoption of cohesive coverage management techniques in the design intent validation flow.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Accellera. SystemVerilog LRM 3.1a. (2004) http://www.systemverilog.org

  2. Adir A, Azatchi H, Bin E, Peled O, Shoikhet K (2005) A generic micro-architectural test plan approach for microprocessor verification. In: The proceedings of 42nd annual Design Automation Conference (DAC), pp 769–774

  3. ARM. AMBA Specification Rev. 2.0. (1999) http://www.arm.com

  4. Basu P, Das S, Banerjee A, Dasgupta P, Chakrabarti PP, Mohan CR, Fix L, Armoni R (2006) Design intent coverage—a new paradigm for formal property verification. IEEE Trans Comput-Aided Des Integr Circuits Syst 25(10):1922–1934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Biere A, Cimatti A, Clarke E, Strichman O, Zhu Y (2003) Bounded model checking. Adv Comput 58:118–149

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chockler H, Kupferman O, Kurshan RP, Vardi MY (2001) A practical approach to coverage in formal verification. In: The proceedings of the 13th international conference on computer aided verification, pp 66–78

  7. Chockler H, Kupferman O, Vardi M (2003) Coverage metrics for formal verification. In: The proceedings of CHARM, pp 111–125

  8. Clarke E, Grumberg O, Peled D (2000) Model checking. MIT Press

  9. Clarke E, Kurshan R (1996) Computer aided verification. IEEE Spectrum 33(6):61–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Das S, Banerjee A, Basu P, Dasgupta P, Chakrabarti PP, Mohan CR, Fix L (2005) Formal methods for analyzing the completeness of an assertion suite against a high-level fault model. In: The proceedings of 18th international conference on VLSI design, pp 201–206

  11. Dasgupta P (2006) A roadmap to formal property verification. Springer

  12. Foster H, Loh L, Rabii B, Singhal V (2006) Guidelines for creating a formal verification testplan. In: The tutorial presented in design and verification conference. San Jose, CA

  13. Hazra A, Banerjee A, Mitra S, Dasgupta P, Chakrabarti PP, Mohan CR (2008) Cohesive coverage management for simulation and formal property verification. In: The proceedings of IEEE symposium on VLSI (ISVLSI), pp 251–256

  14. Hazra A, Dasgupta P, Chakrabarti PP (2012) Cohesive coverage management leveraging formal test plans. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishers

  15. Hazra A, Ghosh P, Dasgupta P, Chakrabarti PP (2009) Inline assertions—embedding formal properties in a test bench. In: The proceedings of 22nd international conference on VLSI design, pp 71–76

  16. Hazra A, Ghosh P, Dasgupta P, Chakrabarti PP (2010) Coverage management with inline assertions and formal test points. In: The proceedings of 23rd international conference on VLSI design, pp 140–145

  17. Hoskote Y, Kam T, Ho P, Zao X (1999) Coverage estimation for symbolic model checking. In: The proceedings of 36th annual design automation conference, pp 300–305

  18. Li J (2006) Automated risk elimination by formally critiquing verification plan and design documentation. In: The proceedings of DesignCon

  19. Magellan. An industrial formal verification tool from synopsys. www.synopsys.com/tools/verification/functionalverification/pages/magellan.aspx

  20. Piziali A (2004) Functional verification coverage measurement and analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers

  21. Piziali A (2006) Verification planning to functional closure of processor-based SoCs. In: The proceedings of DesignCon,

  22. PSL IP. Property specification language. (2004) http://www.eda.org/ieee-1850

  23. Rashinkar P, Paterson P, Singh L (2001) System-on-chip verification: methodology and techniques. Kluwer Academic Publishers

  24. Savor T, Seviora R (1997) Directed simulation for automatic detection of failures. In: The proceedings of World congress on systems simulation, pp 432–441

  25. Sinha A, Dasgupta P, Pal B, Das S, Basu P, Chakrabarti PP (2009) Design intent coverage revisited. ACM Transact Des Automat Electron Syst 14(1):9:1–9:32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sutherland S (2002) The verilog PLI handbook, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic Publishers

  27. Tasiran S, Keutzer K (2001) Coverage metrics for functional verification of hardware designs. IEEE Des Test Comput 18(4):36–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. VCS. An industrial simulator tool from synopsys. www.synopsys.com/tools/verification/functionalverification/pages/vcs.aspx

  29. VIS. A formal verification tool from Colorado University. http://vlsi.colorado.edu/~vis

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and constructive suggestions which have enriched the paper significantly and the editor for handling the paper. Aritra Hazra is supported by Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Research India under the Microsoft Research India PhD Fellowship Award.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India

    Aritra Hazra, Priyankar Ghosh, Pallab Dasgupta & Partha Pratim Chakrabarti

Authors
  1. Aritra Hazra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Priyankar Ghosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pallab Dasgupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Partha Pratim Chakrabarti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aritra Hazra.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: M. Abadir

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hazra, A., Ghosh, P., Dasgupta, P. et al. Cohesive Coverage Management: Simulation Meets Formal Methods. J Electron Test 28, 449–468 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10836-012-5308-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10836-012-5308-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation