Industry Expert Blogs
The Role of Coverage in Formal Verification, Part 1 of 3Functional Verification Blog - Team Specman, CadenceJan. 03, 2011 |
As outlined in a prior post, new advances in formal and multi-engine technology (like Incisive Enterprise Verifier or "IEV") enables users to do complete verification of design IP using only assertions (i.e. no testbench required!) -- especially for blocks of around 1 million flops or less. Given this premise, it's natural to ask: "OK, but how does formal and multi-engine assertion-based verification (ABV) fit into the coverage and metric-driven work flow that I am (A) familiar with, and (B) know is effective in measuring my progress?" In the following series of blog posts, I'll answer these important questions. To spare you some suspense: conceptually, the coverage-driven verification terms and methodologies you are familiar with when writing testbenches and/or constrained-random stimulus in e or SystemVerilog - terms like "constraints'" "code coverage," and "functional coverage" -- have essentially the same meaning in the formal-centric ABV world.
Related Blogs
- Mitigating Side-Channel Attacks In Post Quantum Cryptography (PQC) With Secure-IC Solutions
- Let's Talk PVT Monitoring: Thermal Issues Associated with Modern SoCs - How Hot is Hot?
- Semiconductor Design Firms are Embracing the Public Cloud. Here are 5 Reasons Why.
- Moortec "Let's Talk PVT Monitoring" Series with CTO Oliver King
- ARM vs RISC-V: Beginning of a new era