Skip navigation

DSpace

機構典藏 DSpace 系統致力於保存各式數位資料(如:文字、圖片、PDF)並使其易於取用。

點此認識 DSpace
DSpace logo
English
中文
  • 瀏覽論文
    • 校院系所
    • 出版年
    • 作者
    • 標題
    • 關鍵字
    • 指導教授
  • 搜尋 TDR
  • 授權 Q&A
    • 我的頁面
    • 接受 E-mail 通知
    • 編輯個人資料
  1. NTU Theses and Dissertations Repository
  2. 電機資訊學院
  3. 電機工程學系
請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件: http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/44855
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位值語言
dc.contributor.advisor郭斯彥
dc.contributor.authorHong-Zu Chouen
dc.contributor.author周宏儒zh_TW
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-15T03:56:34Z-
dc.date.available2011-06-28
dc.date.copyright2010-06-28
dc.date.issued2010
dc.date.submitted2010-06-20
dc.identifier.citation[1] M. F. Ali, A. Veneris, S. Safarpour, R. Drechsler, A. Smith and M. Abadir, “Debugging Sequential Circuits Using Boolean Satisfiability,” Proc. International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 2004, pp. 204-209.
[2] M. F. Ali, S. Safarpour, A. Veneris, M. S. Abadir and R. Drechsler, “Post-Verification Debugging of Hierarchical Designs,” Proc. International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 2005, pp. 871-876.
[3] Z. S. Andraus, M. H. Liffiton and K. A. Sakallah, “Refinement Strategies for Verification Methods Based on Datapath Abstraction,” Proc. Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASPDAC), 2006, pp. 19-24.
[4] John Backes and Marc Riedel, “Reduction of Interpolants for Logic Synthesis,” Proc. International Workshop on Logic and Synthesis (IWLS), 2010.
[5] Z. Barzilai, J. L. Carter and J. D. Rutledge, “HSS - a High-speed Simulator,” IEEE Trans. on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, Jul. 1987, Vol. 6(4), pp. 601-617.
[6] M. Benedetti, “sKizzo: A Suite to Evaluate and Certify QBFs,” Proc. International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE), 2005, pp. 369-376
[7] V. Bertacco and M. Damiani, ”The Disjunctive Decomposition of Logic Functions,” Proc. International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 1997, pp. 78-82.
[8] V. Bertacco and K. Olukotun, “Efficient State Representation for Symbolic Simulation,” Proc. Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2002, pp. 99-104.
[9] R. A. Bergamaschi, D. Brand, L. Stok, M. Berkelaar and S. Prakash, “Efficient Use of Large Don’t Cares in High-Level and Logic Synthesis,” Proc. International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 1995, pp. 272-278.
[10] V. Bertacco, “Scalable Hardware Verification with Symbolic Simulation,” Springer, 2005.
[11] R. K. Brayton and A. Mishchenko, “Scalably-Verifiable Sequential Synthesis,” ERL Technical Report, EECS Dept., UC Berkeley, 2007.
[12] J. Bhadra, M. Abadir, L.-C. Wang and S. Ray, “A Survey of Hybrid Techniques for Functional Verification,” IEEE Design and Test of Computers, 2007, Vol. 24(2), pp. 112-122.
[13] A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E. M. Clarke and Y. Zhu, “Symbolic Model Checking without BDDs,” Proc. International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems(TACAS) – Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) 1579, 1999, pp. 193-207.
[14] A. Biere, “Resolve and Expand,” Proc. International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT), 2004, pp. 238-246.
[15] R. Bloem and F. Wotawa, “Verification and Fault Localization in VHDL Programs,” Journal of the Telematics Engineering Society (TIV), 2002, Vol. 2, pp. 30-33.
[16] V. Boppana, I. Ghosh, R. Mukherjee, J. Jain and M. Fujita “Hierarchical Error Diagnosis Targeting RTL Circuits,” Proc. International Conference on VLSI Design, 2000, pp. 436-441.
[17] D. Brand, R. A. Bergamaschi and L. Stok, “Be Careful with Don’t Cares,” Proc. International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 1995, pp. 83-86.
[18] R. E. Bryant, “Graph-Based Algorithms for Boolean Function Manipulation,” IEEE Trans. on Computers, Aug. 1986, pp. 677-691.
[19] R. Brinkmann and R. Drechsler, “RTL-Datapath Verification using Integer Linear Programming,” Proc. Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASPDAC), 2002, pp. 741-746.
[20] J. R. Burch, E. M. Clarke, K. L. McMillan, D. L. Dill and J. Hwang, “Symbolic Model Checking: 1020 states and beyond,” Information and Computation, 1992, Vol. 98(2), pp. 142-170.
[21] J. R. Burch, E. M. Clarke and D. E. Long, “Representing Circuits More Efficiently in Symbolic Model Checking,” Proc. Design Automation Conference (DAC), 1991, pp.403-407.
[22] K. H. Chang, V. Bertacco and I. L. Markov, “Customizing IP Cores for System-on-Chip Designs Using Extensive External Don’t-Cares,” Proc. Design Automation and Test in Europe (DATE), 2009, pp. 582-585.
[23] K. H. Chang, I. L. Markov and V. Bertacco, “Functional Design Errors in Digital Circuits: Diagnosis, Correction and Repair”, Springer 2009.
[24] K. H. Chang, I. Wagner, V. Bertacco and I. L. Markov, ”Automatic Error Diagnosis and Correction for RTL Designs,” Proc. International High Level Design Validation and Test Workshop (HLDVT) 2007, pp. 65-72.
[25] K. H. Chang, I. Wagner, V. Bertacco and I. L. Markov, ”Automatic Error Diagnosis and Correction for RTL Designs,” United States Patent Application 20080295043, November 27, 2008
[26] K. H. Chang, V. Bertacco, I. L. Markov and A. Mishchenko, “Synthesis with External Don’t-Cares Using Shannon Entropy and Craig Interpolation,” Proc. International Workshop on Logic and Synthesis (IWLS), 2008.
[27] K.-H. Chang, V. Bertacco, I. L. Markov and A. Mishchenko, “Logic Synthesis and Circuit Customization Using Extensive External Don’t-Cares,” ACM Trans. on Design Automation of Electronic Systems, May 2010, Vol. 15(3), Article 26.
[28] I. Chayut, “Next-Generation Multimedia Designs: Verification Needs”, Proc. Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2006, Section 23.2.
[29] Y. F. Chen, E. R. Gansner and E. Koutsofios, “A C++ Data Model Supporting Reachability Analysis and Dead Code Detection,” IEEE Trans. on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 1998, Vol. 24(9), pp. 682-694.
[30] E. Cheung, X. Chen, F. Tsai, Y.-C. Hsu and H. Hsieh, “Bridging RTL and Gate: Correlating Different Levels of Abstraction for Design Debugging,” Proc. International High Level Design Validation and Test Workshop (HLDVT) 2007, pp. 73-80.
[31] H. Z. Chou, I. H. Lin, C. S. Yang, K. H. Chang and S. Y. Kuo, “Enhancing Bug Hunting Using High-Level Symbolic Simulation”, Proc. Great Lakes Symposium on VLSI (GLSVLSI), 2009, pp.417-420.
[32] H. Z. Chou, K. H. Chang and S. Y. Kuo, “Handling Don’t-Care Conditions in High-Level Synthesis and Application for Reducing Initialized Registers,” Proc. Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2009, pp. 412-415.
[33] H. Z. Chou, K. H. Chang and S. Y. Kuo, ”Achieving High Quality Verification at Early Design Phases via Native Symbolic Methodologies” Proc. International Workshop on Logic and Synthesis (IWLS), 2009.
[34] H. Z. Chou, K. H. Chang and S. Y. Kuo, ”Optimizing Blocks in an SoC Using Symbolic Code-Statement Reachability Analysis,” Proc. Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASPDAC), 2010, pp. 787-792.
[35] H. Z. Chou, H. Yu, K. H. Chang, D. Dobbyn and S. Y. Kuo, “Finding Reset Nondeterminism in RTL Designs – Scalable X-Analysis Methodology and Case Study,” Proc. Design Automation and Test in Europe (DATE), 2010, pp.1494-1499.
[36] H. Z. Chou, K. H. Chang and S. Y. Kuo, ”Accurately Handle Don’t-Care Conditions in High-Level Designs and Application for Reducing Initialized Registers”, IEEE Trans. on Computer-Aided Design, Apr. 2010, pp. 646-651.
[37] H. Z. Chou, K. H. Chang and S. Y. Kuo, ”Automating Unreachable Code Diagnosis and Debugging”, Proc. International Workshop on Logic and Synthesis (IWLS), 2010.
[38] H. Z. Chou, C. W. Chang, K. H. Chang and S. Y. Kuo, ”Automatic Constraint Generation for Software-Based Post-Silicon Bug Repair” Proc. International Workshop on Logic and Synthesis (IWLS), 2010.
[39] P. Coussy and A. Morawiec, “High-Level Synthesis: from Algorithm to Digital Circuit,” Springer, 2008.
[40] W. Craig, “Linear Reasoning: A New Form of the Herbrand-Gentzen Theorem,” Synthesis Logic, 1957, Vol. 22(3), pp. 250-287.
[41] G. Cunningham, B. Jackson and J. Dines, “Expression Coverability Analysis: Improving Code Coverage with Model Checking,” Proc. Design and Verification Conference and Exhibition (DVCON), 2004.
[42] D. W. Currie, A. J. Hu and S. Rajan, “Automatic Formal Verification of DSP Software,” Proc. Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2000, pp. 130-135.
[43] M. Damiani and G. De Micheli, “Observability Don’t Care Sets and Boolean Relations,” Proc. International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 1990, pp. 502-505.
[44] A. Datta and V. Singhal, “Formal Verification of a Public-Domain DDR2 Controller Design,” Proc. International Conference on VLSI Design, 2008, pp. 475-480.
[45] N. Een and N. Sorensson, “An Extensible SAT-solver,” Proc. International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT), 2003, pp. 502-518.
[46] G. Fey, S. Staber, R. Bloem and R. Drechsler, “Automatic Fault Localization for Property Checking,” IEEE Trans. on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 2008, vol. 27(6), pp. 1138-1149.
[47] H. Foster, A. Krolnik and D. Lacey, “Assertion-Based Design,” Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003.
[48] M. K. Ganai and A. Gupta, “Accelerating High-Level Bounded Model Checkings,” Proc. International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 2002, pp. 729-734.
[49] M. K. Ganai and A. Gupta, “SAT-based Scalable Formal Verification Solutions,” Springer, 2007.
[50] M. Gao, J. Jiang, Y. Jiangm Y. Li, S. Singha and R. K. Brayton, MVSIS, Proc. International Workshop on Logic and Synthesis (IWLS), 2001, http://embedded.eecs.berkeley.edu/mvsis/
[51] R. Gershman, M. Koifman and O. Strichman, “An Approach for Extracting a Small Unsatisfiable Core,” Formal Methods in System Design, 2008, Vol. 33(1-3), pp. 1-27.
[52] C. Haufe and F. Rogin, “Ad-Hoc Translations to Close Verilog Semantics Gap,” Workshop on International Symposium on Design and Diagnostics of Electronic Circuits and Systems (DDECS), 2008, pp. 1-6.
[53] S. Hazelhurst, O. Weissberg, G. Kamhi and L. Fix, “Hybrid Verification Approach: Getting Deep into the Design,” Proc. Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2002, pp. 111-116.
[54] J. L. Hennessy and D. J. Patterson, “Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach,” 2nd edition, Morgan Kaufman, 1996.
[55] C.-R. Ho, M. Theobald, M. M. Deneroff, R. O. Dror, J. Gagliardo and D. E. Shaw, “Early Formal Verification of Conditional Coverage Points to Identify Intrinsically Hard-to-Verify Logic,” Proc. Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2008, pp. 268-271.
[56] A. Hurst, A. Mishchenko and R. K. Brayton, ”Fast Minimum-Register Retiming via Binary Maximum-Flow,” Proc. Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD), 2007, pp. 181-187.
[57] H. Jain, D. Kroening, N. Sharygina and E. Clarke. “Word Level Predicate Abstraction and Refinement for Verifying RTL Verilog,” Proc. Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2005, pp. 445-450.
[58] M. Janota, R. Grigore and M. Moskal, “Reachability Analysis for Annotated Code,” Specification and Verification of Component-Based Systems (SAVCBS), 2007, pp. 23-30.
[59] T. Y. Jiang, C. N. Liu and J. Y. Jou, “Effective Error Diagnosis for RTL Designs in HDLs,” Proc. Asian Test Symposium (ATS), 2002, pp. 362-367.
[60] T. Y. Jiang, C. N. Liu and J. Y. Jou, ”Observability Analysis on HDL Descriptions for Effective Functional Validation,” IEEE Trans. on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 2007, Vol. 26(8), pp. 1509-1521.
[61] J. H. R. Jiang, H. P. Lin and W. L. Hung, “Interpolating Functions from Large Boolean Relations,” Proc. International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 2009, pp. 779-784.
[62] R. B. Jones, C.-J. H. Seger and D. L. Dill, “Self-Consistency Checking,” Proc. Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD) – Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) 1166, 1996. pp. 159-171, Springer-Verlag.
[63] D. Kaiss, M. Skaba, Z. Hanna and Z. Khasidashvili, “Industrial Strength SAT-based Alignability Algorithm for Hardware Equivalence Verification,” Proc. Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD), 2007, pp. 20-26.
[64] M. Karnaugh, ”The Map Method for Synthesis of Combinational Logic Circuits,” Trans. of AIEE, Communication and Electronics, Nov. 1953, part I, Vol. 72(9), pp. 593-599.
[65] C. Kern and M. R. Greenstreet, “Formal Verification In Hardware Design: A Survey,” ACM Trans. on Design Automation of Electronic Systems, Apr. 1999, Vol. 4(2), pp. 123-193.
[66] H. F. Ko and N. Nicolici, “Resource-Efficient Programmable Trigger Units for Post-Silicon Validation,” Proc. European Test Symposium (ETS), 2009, pp. 17-22.
[67] A. Kolbl, J. Kukula and R. Damiano, “Symbolic RTL simulation,” Proc. Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2001, pp. 47-52.
[68] A. Kolbl, J. Kukula, K. Antreich and R. Damiano, “Handling Special Constructs in Symbolic Simulation,” Proc. Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2002, pp. 105-110.
[69] D. Kroening and S. A. Seshia, “Formal Verification at Higher Levels of Abstraction,” Proc. International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 2007, pp. 572-578.
[70] S. Y. Kuo, “Locating Logic Design Errors via Test Generation and Don’t-Care Propagation,” EURO-DAC, 1992, pp 466-471.
[71] A. Ling, D. P. Singh and S. D. Brown, “FPGA Logic Synthesis Using Quantified Boolean Satisfiability,” Proc. International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT), 2005, pp. 444-450.
[72] M. R. Prasad, A. Biere and A. Gupta, “A Survey of Recent Advances in SAT-based Formal Verification,” International. J. Software Tools for Technology Transfer, Apr. 2005, Vol. 7(2), pp. 156-173.
[73] J. C. Madre, O. Coudert and J. P. Billon, “Automating the Diagnosis and the Rectification of Design Errors with PRIAM,” Proc. International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 1989, pp 30-33.
[74] A. Malik, R. K. Brayton and A. L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, “A Modified Approach to Two-Level Logic Minimization,” Proc. International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 1988, pp. 106-109.
[75] H. Mangassarian, A. Veneris and M. Benedetti, “Fault Diagnosis Using Quantified Boolean Formulas,” Silicon Debug and Diagnosis Workshop, 2007.
[76] J. P. Marques-Silva and K. A. Sakallah, “GRASP: A Search Algorithm for Propositional Satisfiability,” IEEE Trans. on Computers, 1999, Vol. 48(5), pp. 506-521.
[77] E. J. McCluskey and H.Schorr, “Minimization of Boolean Functions,” Bell System Technical Journal, Nov. 1956, Vol. 35(5), pp. 1417-1444.
[78] K. L. McMillan, “Interpolation and SAT-Based Model Checking,” Proc. International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV) – Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) 2725, 2003, pp. 1-13, Springer.
[79] A. Mishchenko and R. K. Brayton, “SAT-Based Complete Don’t-Care Computation for Network Optimization,” Proc. Design Automation and Test in Europe (DATE), 2005, pp. 412-417.
[80] A. Mishchenko, S. Chatterjee, R. Brayton and N. U+00B4 Een, “Improvements to Combinational Equivalence Checking,” Proc. International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 2006, pp. 836-843.
[81] A. Mishchenko, S. Chatterjee and R. Brayton, ”DAG-aware AIG rewriting: A fresh look at combinational logic synthesis”, Proc. Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2006, pp. 532-536.
[82] A. Mishchenko, M. L. Case, R. K. Brayton and S. Jang, ”Scalable and Scalably-Verifiable Sequential Synthesis,” Proc. International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 2008, pp. 234-241.
[83] M. D. Moffitt, J. A. Roy and I. L. Markov, “The Coming of Age of (Academic) Global Routing,” Proc. International Symposium on Physical Design (ISPD), 2008, 148-155.
[84] M. W. Moskewicz, C. F. Madigan, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang and S. Malik, “Chaff: Engineering an Efficient SAT Solver,” Proc. Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2001, pp. 530-535.
[85] B. Murray, “Mixing Formal and Dynamic Verification, Part 1” Apr. 2009. http://www.scdsource.com/article.php?id=333
[86] B. Murray, “Mixing Formal and Dynamic Verification, Part 2” Apr. 2009. http://www.scdsource.com/article.php?id=341
[87] S. M. Plaza, K. H. Chang, I. L. Markov and V. Bertacco, “Node Mergers in the Presence of Don’t Cares,” Proc. Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASPDAC), 2007, pp. 414-419.
[88] P. Pudlak, “Lower Bounds for Resolution and Cutting Plane Proofs and Monotone Computations,” Journal on Symbolic Logic, 1997, Vol. 62(3), pp. 981-998.
[89] R. Ranjan, Y. Antonioli, A. Hunter and O. Petlin, “Formal Verification Enables Safe X Handling,” Dec. 2008. http://www.scdsource.com/article.php?id=324
[90] J. Rajski and J. Vasudevamurthy, “The Testability-Preserving Concurrent Decomposition and Factorization of Boolean Expressions,” IEEE Trans. on Computer- Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 1992, Vol. 11(6), pp. 778-793.
[91] R. Rudell and A. L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, “Multiple-Valued Minimization for PLA Optimization,” IEEE Trans. on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 1987, Vol. 6(5), pp. 727-750.
[92] H. Savoj and R. K. Brayton, “Observability Relations and Observability Don’t Cares,” Proc. International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 1991, pp. 518-521.
[93] N. Saluja and S. Khatri, “A Robust Algorithm for Approximate Compatible Observability Don’t Care (CODC) Computation,” Proc. Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2004, pp. 422-427.
[94] H. Samulowitz and F. Bacchus, “Binary Clause Reasoning in QBF,” Proc. International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT), 2006, pp. 353-367.
[95] C.- J. H. Seger and R. E. Bryant, “Formal Verification by Symbolic Evaluation of Partially-Ordered Trajectories,” Formal Methods in System Design, 1995, Vol. 6(2), pp. 147-190.
[96] E. M. Sentovich, K. J. Singh, L. Lavagno, et al., “SIS: A System for Sequential Circuit Synthesis,” ERL Technical Report, UCB/ERL M92/41, May 1992. http://embedded.eecs.berkeley.edu/pubs/downloads/sis/index.htm
[97] C. H. Shi and J. Y. Jou, “An Efficient Approach for Error Diagnosis in HDL Design,” International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), 2003, pp. 732-735.
[98] K. Shimizu and D. L. Dill, “Deriving a Simulation Input Generator and a Coverage Metric From a Formal Specification,” Proc. Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2002, pp. 801-806.
[99] A. Smith, A. Veneris and A. Viglas, ”Design Diagnosis Using Boolean Satisfiability,” Proc. Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASPDAC), 2004, pp. 218-223.
[100] S. Sunkari, S. Chakraborty, V. Vedula and K. Maneparambil, “A Scalable Symbolic Simulator for Verilog RTL,” workshop on MTV’07, pp. 51-59.
[101] A. Sulflow, G. Fey, C. Braunstein, U. Kuhne and R. Drechsler, “Increasing the Accuracy of SAT-based Debugging,” Proc. Design Automation and Test in Europe (DATE), 2009, pp. 1326-1331.
[102] M. Turpin, “The Dangers of Living with an X,” SNUG Boston, 2003.
[103] M. Velev, R. E. Bryant and A. Jain, “Efficient modeling of memory arrays in symbolic simulation,” LNCS, Vol. 1254, Springer, 1997.
[104] M. N. Velev and R. E. Bryant, “Superscalar Processor Verification Using Efficient Reductions of the Logic of Equality with Uninterpreted Functions to Propositional Logic,” Proc. Correct Hardware Design and Verification Methods – Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) 1703, 1999, pp. 37-53, Springer-Verlag.
[105] The VIS Group, “VIS: A System for Verification and Synthesis,” Proc. International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV) – Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) 1102, pp. 428-432, Springer-Verlag.
[106] I. Wagner, V. Bertacco and T. Austin, “StressTest: An Automatic Approach to Test Generation Via Activity Monitors,” Proc. Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2005, pp. 783-788.
[107] I. Wagner, V. Bertacco, “Engineering Trust with Semantic Guardians,” Proc. Design Automation and Test in Europe (DATE), 2007, pp 743-748.
[108] F. Xie and H. Liu, “Unified Property Specification for Hardware/Software Co-Verification,” Proc. Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), 2007. Vol. 1, pp. 483-490.
[109] S. Yamashita, H. Sawada and A. Nagoya, “A New Method to Express Functional Permissibilities for LUT Based FPGAs and Its Applications,” Proc. International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 1996, pp. 254-261.
[110] S. Yamashita, H. Sawada and A. Nagoya, “SPFD: A New Method to Express Functional Flexibility,” IEEE Trans. on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 2000, Vol. 19(8), pp. 840-849.
[111] J. Yuan, K. Albin, A. Aziz and C. Pixley, “Constraint Synthesis for Environment Modeling in Functional Verification,” Proc. Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2003, pp. 296-299.
[112] Q. Zhu, N. Kitchen, A. Kuehlmann and A. L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, “SAT Sweeping with Local Observability Don’t-Cares,” Proc. Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2006, pp. 229-234.
[113] Berkeley Logic Synthesis and Verification Group, ABC: A System for Sequential Synthesis and Verification, Release 70930. http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/ alanmi/abc/
[114] Avery Design Systems Inc., http://www.avery-design.com
[115] Bug UnderGround, http://bug.eecs.umich.edu
[116] Forte Design Systems, http://www.forteds.com
[117] sKizzo: a QBF solver, http://skizzo.info
[118] Presentation, “Advanced Functional Verification”, Mentor Graphics.
[119] IC/ASIC Functional Verification Study, 2002/2004, Collett International Research
dc.identifier.urihttp://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/44855-
dc.description.abstract隨著系統單晶片設計(System-On-Chip,SoC)的發展,電路設計面臨的許多新的課題及挑戰,其中最為重大的挑戰就是如何確保一個複雜電路的功能正確性。大多數現存的驗證技術可以運作於暫存器傳輸層級(Register Transfer Level,RTL)與邏輯閘層級(Gate Level),為了盡早發現設計中的錯誤,驗證技術的發展趨勢逐漸朝向更高的設計抽象層級。在本論文中,我們針對系統單晶片在高階驗證所遇到的問題,提出許多創新的解決方案。首先,我們提出一個稱為BugHunter的基礎架構,該架構基於符號式模擬(Symbolic simulation)方法,整合許多優化技術,可改善高階驗證的效率及擴充性。
有鑑於高階符號式模擬的優點,在本論文中,我們開發了一個正規式程式碼可達性分析(Code-statement reachability analysis)技術。相對於傳統的覆蓋率分析方法,我們的技術可以準確地分析高階設計及測試平台的程式碼可達性,找出潛在的設計錯誤,大幅降低驗證所需的時間。然而,當任何程式碼被判斷為具有不可達性(Unreachability)時,由於可達性分析無法提供反例,分析錯誤的工作變得相當困難。針對這個問題,我們提出了一個不可達性診斷
(Unreachability diagnosis)技術,使用者可藉由這個技術快速地找出程式碼不可達性的原因,並加以修復。
除了功能性驗證問題之外,設計中的不確定性(Nondeterminism)問題逐漸在系統單晶片電路設計中的受到重視。設計中為了節省電力消耗或是解決繞線壅塞的問題,往往只將一些重要的暫存器接上重置信號。然而,未接上重置信號的暫存器可能會造成整體電路運作具有不確定性,導致嚴重的後果。針對這個問題,我們提出一個新穎的驗證機制,利用符號式模擬技術來找出大型電路中的不確定性問題。
此外,基於該驗證機制,我們也提出數個演算法來降低設計中需要重置信號的暫存器數量,以提昇系統單晶片設計的品質。
由於系統單晶片設計著重整合並重複利用已經存在的矽智產(Silicon Intellectual Properties),因此設計中可能存在相當多的無關項(Don't-cares)。例如對於一個只需要整數乘法的設計來說,其處理器中的浮點數運算單元可能永遠不會被使用到,如此便可將該浮點數運算單元視為一個無關項。在本論文中,我們利用上述的正規式程式碼可達性分析技術,找出設計中的無關項並且將其移除。實驗結果顯示,我們的方法能夠針對暫存器傳輸層級,移除不必要的程式碼,減少邏輯合成後的電路大小及降低電力消耗。
同時,我們的方法還可實現軟硬體共同設計及最佳化,對於系統單晶片設計有極大的幫助。
雖然大量的時間及人力被投入到驗證工作中,設計錯誤仍有可能到晶片下線後或是商品化後才被察覺。針對這個問題,我們提出了一個後矽錯誤修復(Post-silicon bug repair)機制,藉由產生軟體的限制規則(Constraints),達成硬體錯誤修復的目的。由於產生的限制規則可能相當複雜,不但造成軟體修改的困難,同時也降低系統的運作效率。因此,在本篇論文中,我們提出了新穎的最佳化技術,利用無關項來減少限制規則的大小及複雜度,在系統運作效率受到最小影響下,達成硬體修復的目的。
zh_TW
dc.description.abstractThe increasing popularity of System-on-Chip (SoC) circuits results in many new design challenges. One major challenge is to ensure the functional correctness of such complicated circuits. While most existing verification techniques work well at the Register Transfer (RT) and gate levels, the growing trend is to extend verification to higher-level design abstractions in order to catch bugs early on. In this dissertation, we describe several innovative techniques to address the high-level verification problems for SoC designs. First, we propose a framework called BugHunter that consists of several enhancements and methodologies to improve the scalability and efficiency of high-level verification using symbolic simulation. To better leverage the power of high-level symbolic simulation, we develop a technique that can perform formal code-statement reachability analysis on designs and testbenches directly. This technique can detect bugs at high-level code directly, thus reducing verification time. Once unreachability is found, however, debugging is still an issue because the nature of unreachability prevents the
generation of counterexamples. To address this problem, we propose an innovative diagnosis technique that can identify root causes of unreachability.
In addition to functional verification, another issue that began to emerge in SoC circuits is the design nondeterminism problem. In order to save power or reduce routing congestion, a popular design methodology is to
reset important registers only. However, the uninitialized registers may cause nondeterminism in circuit behavior and cause serious problems. To catch such problems, we propose a nondeterminism verification technique using symbolic simulation and SAT solvers, and it can scale to large designs due to the accompanied novel methodology.
To further improve SoC quality, we also develop algorithms that can automate the reset register reduction process.
One major characteristic in SoC designs is the existence of abundant don't-cares. For example, the floating-point unit of a processor may never be used in a design that only requires integer multiplication. To utilize such don't-cares, we utilize our formal reachability analysis methods to identify and remove redundant code under the given input constraints. Our case studies show that this technique can remove unused RTL code and thus reducing the synthesized block area and power consumption. In addition, it can also
facilitate hardware/software co-design and co-optimization, a feature that is useful in early SoC design phases.
It has been pointed out that, although considerable effort
is applied to design verification, bug may still be undetected until tape-out or even the chip is commercialized, causing serious problems. To solve the problem, we propose a software-based post-silicon bug repair methodology that can automatically generate constraints for software so that hardware bugs can be worked around. Since the constraint may be complicated,
we also propose a novel optimization method based on don't-cares that can dramatically reduce the size of the constraint. In this way, software can be easily modified, either online or offline, so that it runs correctly on the buggy hardware.
en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T03:56:34Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
ntu-99-F92921024-1.pdf: 1923386 bytes, checksum: efe0aed62fce8c23f357afe9d4b9ca0c (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2010
en
dc.description.tableofcontentsAcknowledgments i
Abstract v
List of Figures xiii
List of Tables xvii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Design Verification Trends and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Our Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Dissertation Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Chapter 2 Background and Prior Art 11
2.1 Prevalent Verification Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Recent Verification Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3 Logic Synthesis and Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Chapter 3 General Bug Hunting 17
3.1 Background and Previous Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.1.1 Constrained-Random Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1.2 Symbolic Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1.3 Word-Level and Boolean-Level Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.2 Characteristics of High-Level Symbolic Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.3 Enhancing High-Level Symbolic Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3.1 Integrating High-Level Symbolic Simulation and Boolean-Level Verification . 24
3.3.2 Branch and Bound of Simulation Traces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.4 New RTL Symbolic Verification Paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.4.1 Reusing Constrained-Random Testbench for Symbolic Verification . . . . . . 27
3.4.2 Heterogeneous Design Verification Using Common Testbench 28
3.4.3 Improving Verifiability by Identifying Hard-to-Verify Code at Design Stage 29
3.5 Achieving High-Quality Verification at Early Design Phases . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.5.1 Dependency Analysis Guides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.5.2 Data Transport Guides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.5.3 Reachability Guides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.5.4 Design Embedded Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.6 Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.6.1 Design Verification Using BugHunter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.6.2 Design Verification with Verification Guides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Chapter 4 X Verification 49
4.1 Background and Previous Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.1.1 Concept of Under-/Over-constrained Random Testbenches . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.1.2 X-Pessimism and X-Optimism in Logic Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.1.3 Analytical Study of X-Problems and Current Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.2 Handling X-Values at Higher Levels of Design Abstraction . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.2.1 Accurately Handle X-propagation at the RTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.2.2 Checking the Observability of X-values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.2.3 Applications of Accurate X-Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.3 eXact: Scalable X-Verification Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.3.1 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.3.2 Generating Stimulus for X-Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.3.3 Deciding What to Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.3.4 Enhancing Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.3.5 Overall Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.4 Case Studies for Finding Reset Nondeterminism in RTL Designs . . . . . . . . . 67
4.4.1 Description of Design Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.4.2 X-Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.4.3 Bugs Found and Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.5 Fixing Gate-Level Logic Simulation When Xs Exist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.5.1 Reset Controllability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.5.2 Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Chapter 5 Code Reachability Analysis and Unreachability Diagnosis 77
5.1 Background and Previous Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
5.1.1 Hardware Error Diagnosis Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5.1.2 Hardware and Software Code Reachability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.2 Code Statement Reachability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.3 Analysis of the Unreachability Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.3.1 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.3.2 Common Causes of Unreachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.3.3 Potential Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.4 Unreachability Diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.4.1 New Symbolic Simulation Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.4.2 Diagnosis and Counterexample Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.4.3 Implementation Insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.5 Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.5.1 Diagnosis Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.5.2 Quantitative Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Chapter 6 Software-based Post-Silicon Bug Repair 99
6.1 Background and Previous Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.1.1 Post-Silicon Bug Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.1.2 Formal Reachability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
6.1.3 Craig Interpolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.1.4 Synthesis Optimization Using Don’t-Cares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.2 Software-Based Post-Silicon Bug Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
6.2.1 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
6.2.2 Generating Constraints Using Reachability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
6.2.3 Overall Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.3 Constraint Optimization Via Resynthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.3.1 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
6.3.2 Function Optimization Using Craig Interpolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
6.3.3 Analysis of Our Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
6.4 Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Chapter 7 Reset Reduction 119
7.1 Background and Previous Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
7.1.1 Handling X at the RTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
7.1.2 Boolean Satisfiability and Quantified Boolean Formulas . . . . . . . . . . 120
7.2 Reducing Initialized Registers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7.2.1 SAT-Based Optimal Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
7.2.2 QBF-Based Optimal Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
7.2.3 Fast Heuristic Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
7.2.4 Scalability Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.3 Generating Reset Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.4 Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
7.4.1 Comparing Optimal and Heuristic Algorithms Using PIPE . . . . . . . . . . 131
7.4.2 Evaluating Heuristic Algorithm on DLX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
7.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Chapter 8 Circuit Customization Using Symbolic Reachability Analysis 137
8.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
8.1.1 Benefits of RTL Code Reachability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
8.1.2 Don’t-Cares in Logic Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
8.2 Circuit Optimization Using Constrained-Random Testbench . . . . . . . . . . . 141
8.2.1 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
8.2.2 Overall Flow of Our Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
8.2.3 Ensuring the Correctness of Optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.4 Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Chapter 7 Reset Reduction 119
7.1 Background and Previous Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
7.1.1 Handling X at the RTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
7.1.2 Boolean Satisfiability and Quantified Boolean Formulas . . . . . . . . . . 120
7.2 Reducing Initialized Registers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7.2.1 SAT-Based Optimal Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
7.2.2 QBF-Based Optimal Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
7.2.3 Fast Heuristic Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
7.2.4 Scalability Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.3 Generating Reset Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.4 Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
7.4.1 Comparing Optimal and Heuristic Algorithms Using PIPE . . . . . . . . . . 131
7.4.2 Evaluating Heuristic Algorithm on DLX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
7.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Chapter 8 Circuit Customization Using Symbolic Reachability Analysis 137
8.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
8.1.1 Benefits of RTL Code Reachability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
8.1.2 Don’t-Cares in Logic Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
8.2 Circuit Optimization Using Constrained-Random Testbench . . . . . . . . . . . 141
8.2.1 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
8.2.2 Overall Flow of Our Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
8.2.3 Ensuring the Correctness of Optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
8.3 Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
8.3.1 Cast Study: DLX Processor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
8.3.2 Case Study: Alpha Processor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
8.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Chapter 9 Summary of Contributions 149
Bibliography 153
dc.language.isoen
dc.subject合成最佳化zh_TW
dc.subject暫存器層級符號式模擬zh_TW
dc.subject不可達性診斷技術zh_TW
dc.subject程式碼可達性分析zh_TW
dc.subject系統不確定性驗證zh_TW
dc.subject驗證zh_TW
dc.subject電路客製化zh_TW
dc.subjectunreachability diagnosisen
dc.subjectcircuit customizationen
dc.subjectRTL symbolic simulationen
dc.subjectverificationen
dc.subjectX-verificationen
dc.subjectcode reachability analysisen
dc.subjectsynthesis optimizationen
dc.title實現高品質SoC設計之創新驗證與合成技術zh_TW
dc.titleInnovative Verification and Synthesis Techniques for Achieving High-Quality SoC Designsen
dc.typeThesis
dc.date.schoolyear98-2
dc.description.degree博士
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee雷欽隆,顏嗣鈞,王國禎,陳英一,袁世一,呂學坤,陳俊良
dc.subject.keyword暫存器層級符號式模擬,驗證,系統不確定性驗證,程式碼可達性分析,不可達性診斷技術,合成最佳化,電路客製化,zh_TW
dc.subject.keywordRTL symbolic simulation,verification,X-verification,code reachability analysis,unreachability diagnosis,synthesis optimization,circuit customization,en
dc.relation.page166
dc.rights.note有償授權
dc.date.accepted2010-06-21
dc.contributor.author-college電機資訊學院zh_TW
dc.contributor.author-dept電機工程學研究所zh_TW
顯示於系所單位:電機工程學系

文件中的檔案:
檔案 大小格式 
ntu-99-1.pdf
  未授權公開取用
1.88 MBAdobe PDF
顯示文件簡單紀錄


系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。

社群連結
聯絡資訊
10617臺北市大安區羅斯福路四段1號
No.1 Sec.4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. 106
Tel: (02)33662353
Email: ntuetds@ntu.edu.tw
意見箱
相關連結
館藏目錄
國內圖書館整合查詢 MetaCat
臺大學術典藏 NTU Scholars
臺大圖書館數位典藏館
本站聲明
© NTU Library All Rights Reserved