Symbolic Execution for Hardware Pipeline Verification
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current methods for testing and debugging hardware pipelines are inefficient, requiring developers to write extensive test cases to verify the operability of hardware configurations and pipelines, which can be time-consuming and prone to missing bugs in complex execution paths.
Innovation Solution
The use of symbolic execution to compare the output of a software model of a hardware pipeline with a reference software implementation, allowing for automated detection of discrepancies and programming bugs without the need for additional proofs or formal logic annotations, by symbolically executing both models and reporting discrepancies in execution paths.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If developers use traditional test case methods to verify hardware pipeline operability, then they can detect functional bugs, but the testing process becomes time-consuming and requires extensive manual effort to write and execute test cases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent creates a software model that copies the hardware pipeline's logic and behavior. This software model can be symbolically executed to verify hardware functionality without requiring physical hardware testing, thus reducing testing time while maintaining verification accuracy.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent replaces the mechanical process of manually writing and executing test cases with an automated symbolic execution system. The symbolic execution engine automatically explores execution paths and generates test cases, substituting manual mechanical testing with an automated computational approach.
2Reliability
If developers manually write test cases to cover complex execution paths, then they can verify hardware logic, but the process is prone to missing bugs and requires extensive developer effort
Solution Approach 1:
The symbolic execution engine performs self-service by automatically generating test cases and exploring execution paths without requiring manual intervention. The system serves itself by autonomously verifying hardware logic, reducing both developer effort and the complexity of the testing process.
Solution Approach 2:
The symbolic execution engine performs exhaustive exploration of execution paths, going beyond what manual testing can achieve. By systematically exploring all possible paths rather than selecting a subset, the engine ensures comprehensive verification while automating the process to manage complexity.
3Reliability
If developers use automated test suites with CI/CD tools, then they can verify hardware updates, but they still need to write code to test hardware logic which reduces productivity
Solution Approach 1:
The patent uses a software model that copies hardware pipeline behavior to enable automated verification. This model can be integrated into CI/CD pipelines to automatically verify hardware updates without requiring developers to write test code, thus improving productivity while maintaining verification reliability.
Solution Approach 2:
The symbolic execution engine automatically generates and executes test cases for hardware updates without requiring developer intervention. The system self-services the verification process, integrating seamlessly into CI/CD workflows and improving development productivity by eliminating manual test code writing.
Data Source
AI summary
Provided are a computer program product, system, and method for using symbolic execution to validate a hardware configuration with a reference software implementation of processing rules. Symbolic execution is performed of a software model comprising executable code defining logic of a hardware pipeline to produce first symbolic output. Symbolic execution is performed of a reference software implementation of processing rules implemented in the hardware pipeline to produce second symbolic output. The first symbolic output and the second symbolic are compared output to determine a discrepancy between the first and the second symbolic outputs. The discrepancy is reported including report information on a cause of the discrepancy.