The Role of Coverage in Formal Verification, Part 1 of 3
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.
To read the full article, click here
Related Semiconductor IP
- Band-Gap Voltage Reference with dual 2µA Current Source - X-FAB XT018
- 250nA-88μA Current Reference - X-FAB XT018-0.18μm BCD-on-SOI CMOS
- UCIe D2D Adapter & PHY Integrated IP
- Low Dropout (LDO) Regulator
- 16-Bit xSPI PSRAM PHY
Related Blogs
- How to Speed Up Simulation Coverage Closure with Formal Verification Tools
- Reducing Manual Effort and Achieving Better Chip Verification Coverage with AI and Formal Techniques
- How AI Drives Faster Chip Verification Coverage and Debug for First-Time-Right Silicon
- Raising RISC-V processor quality with formal verification
Latest Blogs
- AI in Design Verification: Where It Works and Where It Doesn’t
- PCIe 7.0 fundamentals: Baseline ordering rules
- Ensuring reliability in Advanced IC design
- A Closer Look at proteanTecs Health and Performance Management Solutions Portfolio
- Enabling Memory Choice for Modern AI Systems: Tenstorrent and Rambus Deliver Flexible, Power-Efficient Solutions