High-level verification

2Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The growth in size and heterogeneity of System-on-Chip (SOC) design makes their design process from initial specification to IC implementation complex. System-level design methods seek to combat this complexity by shifting increasing design burden to high-level languages such as SystemC and SystemVerilog. Such languages not only make a design easier to describe using high-level abstractions, but also provide a path for systematic implementation through refinement and elaboration of such descriptions. In principle, this can enable a greater exploration of design alternatives and thus better design optimization than possible using lower level design methods. To achieve these goals, however, verification capabilities that seek to validate designs at higher levels as well their equivalences with lower level implementations are crucially needed. To the extent possible given the large space of design alternatives, such validation must be formal to ensure the design and important properties are provably correct against various implementation choices. In this paper, we present a survey of high-level verification techniques that are used for both verification and validation of high-level designs, that is, designs modeled using high-level programming languages. These techniques include those based on model checking, theorem proving and approaches that integrate a combination of the above methods. The high-level verification approaches address verification of properties as well as equivalence checking with refined implementations. We also focus on techniques that use information from the synthesis process for improved validation. Finally, we conclude with a discussion and future research directions in this area. © 2009 Information Processing Society of Japan.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kundu, S., Lerner, S., & Gupta, R. (2009). High-level verification. IPSJ Transactions on System LSI Design Methodology, 2, 131–144. https://doi.org/10.2197/ipsjtsldm.2.131

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free