Robert B. Jones, Carl-Johan H. Seger, and David L. Dill. Self consistency checking. In Mandayam Srivas and Albert Camilleri, editors, Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD), volume 1166 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 159-171. Springer-Verlag, November 1996.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....of this discovery is that the mere symbolic simulation of microcode is nearly as valuable as full formal verification in many situations. An early study of symbolic simulation can be found in [1] The use of formal methods in the absence of an abstract specification was also explored in [5]. We also observed that, to a large extent, this type of symbolic analysis is amenable to automation. In the case of simple sequential microcode with the appropriate infrastructure in place, one need only indicate to the automated reasoning system the number of microcycles required to execute the ....

Robert B. Jones, Carl-Johan H. Seger, and David L. Dill. Self-consistency checking. In Mandayam Srivas and Albert Camilleri, editors, Formal Methods in ComputerAided Design -- FMCAD, volume 1166 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1996.

....a partition. Statements of formal correctness that do not use an abstract execution model are rare. One example is the self consistency checking work, wherein for example the operation of a processor s pipeline is specified using the same pipeline with NOP s inserted into the instruction stream [9]. Another is the symbolic simulation work whose objectives include regression testing of an evolving design by comparing symbolic execution of generations of designs [8] The KIT correctness theorem, and all theorems that use an abstract model to specify system behavior, are not especially useful ....

Robert B. Jones, Carl-Johan H. Seger, and David L. Dill. Self-consistency checking. In Mandayam Srivas and Albert Camilleri, editors, Formal Methods in ComputerAided Design -- FMCAD, volume 1166 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1996.

....an arbitrary abstraction function that makes the correctness criterion diagram commute) and by decomposing the commutative diagram from [6] into three more easily verifiable commutative diagrams. The correctness of this decomposition is proven by Windley and Burch [21] Jones, Seger, and Dill [12] propose the use of the pipeline as a specification for the correctness of its forwarding logic. They apply two specially designed instruction sequences that should yield identical behaviors and compare their effects on the register file. One of the sequences completely fills the pipeline with ....

R.B. Jones, C.-J.H. Seger, and D.L. Dill, "Self-Consistency Checking," FMCAD `96, M. Srivas and A. Camilleri, eds., LNCS 1166, Springer-Verlag, November 1996, pp. 159-171.

....has extended it to superscalar processor verification by proposing a new flushing mechanism and by decomposing the commutative diagram from [4] into three more easily verifiable commutative diagrams. The correctness of this decomposition is proven by Windley and Burch [14] Jones, Seger, and Dill [8] propose the use of the pipeline as a specification for the correctness of its forwarding logic. They apply two specially designed instruction sequences that should yield identical behaviors and compare their effects on the register file. One of the sequences completely fills the pipeline with ....

R. B. Jones, C.-J. H. Seger, and D. L. Dill, "Self-Consistency Checking," FMCAD `96, M. Srivas and A. Camilleri, eds., LNCS 1166, Springer-Verlag, November 1996, pp. 159-171.

No context found.

Robert B. Jones, Carl-Johan H. Seger, and David L. Dill. Self consistency checking. In Mandayam Srivas and Albert Camilleri, editors, Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD), volume 1166 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 159-171. Springer-Verlag, November 1996.

....step of our technique shows that the in order abstraction is functionally equivalent to the ISA. This is accomplished via a technique introduced in this paper that we call incremental flushing, based on the Burch Dill automatic flushing approach and the self consistency technique of Jones et al. [8]. Incremental flushing reduces the verification complexity associated with flushing lengthy pipelines. This technique is also applicable to verification of other deeply pipelined hardware designs, not just out of order microarchitectures. We have created a simple model of an out of order execution ....

....last( n (q ffi a ; hw; w r i) last( 1 (q ffi a ; hw 1 ; w 1 r i) A Max 1 execution is derived from a Max n execution by reordering the issues and retires. This notion is based on the concept of self consistency: execution results should be equivalent for certain classes of inputs [8]. The final results of Max n and Max 1 executions will be identical if we can prove inductively that reordering issue and retires for distinct instructions does not change the resulting state. Section 6.1 details the proof obligations for this step. The second ABS ISA verification step shows that ....

R. B. Jones, C.-J. H. Seger, and D. L. Dill. Self-consistency checking. In FMCAD '96, volume 1166 of LNCS, pages 159--171, Stanford, CA, USA, November 1996. Springer-Verlag.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC