Tag Archives: acc

ACC update

As a quick update to ACC post, VCS’s 2009.06 has come out with a related technology called Coverage Convergence Technology (CCT), read a user success at:

Improve Verification Productivity with Synopsys Coverage Convergence Technology


And NuSym rocks as ever before in this domain with great user interest for the successive DAC. They seem to have a good technology, but my worry is will the customers pay extra $$$$ for it? Let’s wait and watch. But their technology as can be read from their WhitePaper is based on “Path Tracing” and sounds very solid. The real challenge is in “execution” – or implementing that technology in a solid code in an EDA tool. Perhaps if you have few Armenian folks (who wrote the code for Synopsys’s new “Custom Designer” product), that will help? – A separate entry on that product soon..



Automatic Coverage Closure – my perspective

Migrating my old blog post to CVC’s homepage. Tune-in for an update (with DAC09 underway, didn’t you expect that anyway :-) ??)
Automatic Coverage Closure – my perspective

Recently EDA tools are emerging in the area of “Automatic Coverage Closure” that promise a new level of automation in CDV/MDV/any_other_Buzz_word_Driven_Verification process. A significant name in this arena is nuSym, a relatively new EDA player. There have been few good reviews about them @ Deepchip.com.




And another one @ SiliconIndia:


And very recently on VerifGuild:


I like Gopi’s post/comment b’cos I have the same opinion about CRV (Constraint Random Verification) – it catches scenarios/bugs that you didn’t envision – either via constraints or coverage (or otherwise). Now if we fool ourself by going behind “only the existing/identified coverage holes” we fall into a trap. This is inline/insync with what Sundaresan Kumbakonam of BRCM ( need his profile? See: http://vlsi-india.org/vsi/activities/dvw05_blr/index.html) shared with me once:

Quoting Sundaresan:

I don’t believe much in the idea of “writing functional coverage model” and then tweaking a constraint here-or-there, or writing a “directed test” for it to fill the hole.

Coming back to my view, I believe some redundancy via randomness/CRV is actually good. In my past verification cycles I have seen design errors due to “repeated patterns” – no big deal, is it?

So where exactly do these ACC tools fit?

Referring back to:


>> whether these tools are only used to reach last few % of coverage goal which is hard to reach ?

I would differ here, they shall be very useful somewhere during the middle phase – neither too early, nor too late. Too early – perhaps we don’t have full RTL and/or functional cov model. Too late – perhaps our focus should be more into “checking” than only coverage (As Nagesh pointed out in VerifGuild). I would like to add that during those last minutes, the coverage shall be taken for “granted” – meaning it is a *must* and not a *nice to have* thing and the focus shall be to look for any failures.

To me a reasonable flow with these ACC tools would be:

  • Run with CRV, measure code coverage. Add checkers
  • Add functional coverage, use CRV again to hit them using the coverage points as “potential trouble spots” than “actual scenarios” themselves. In few cases where in the scenario description is easy to capture using Functional coverage syntax, this is great. IMHO the existing coverage syntax is little too verbose and unusable to a large extent for solid, easy-to-use coverage specification. Specifically the SV syntax overhead of coverage is just too much for me. IEEE 1647 “e” fairs slightly better but that’s a different story altogether. I’m still on the lookout for a higher level coverage specification language.. (matter for another blog post anyway).
  • Once the RTL and the coverage model is reasonably stable, use ACC regularly as a “sanity” test on every interim RTL release. I believe ACC has a HUGE potential here – if we can optimize the tests needed to release interim RTL versions, we are saving quality time and enabling faster turn around.
  • Towards the end, enable “plain CRV” (without the ACC bias) and look for “trouble free regression for XX days”.

And while speaking to a friend of mine here a while back, he is damn against the idea of using these ACC tools for merely stimulus. He likes the idea of ACC if it can be used to:

  • Fill functional cov holes
  • Code coverage holes
  • Assertion cov misses/holes

A tough ask, but looks like nuSym can handle that – atleast based on the early reviews so far. Also reading their whitepaper on “intelligent verification”, they do a path tracing that enables them to systematically target code coverage without getting into Formal world – cool idea indeed! Kudos to nuSym folks (some of them my ex-colleagues BTW).

And on the application of these ACC tools to the poor, non-CRV/CDV folks – there is light at the end of the tunnel, if you read nuSym’s paper. We at CVC also have ideas on how to use this for a highly configurable IP verification with plain vanilla verilog/task based TBs. We need to prototype it before we can discuss it in detail though.

Anyway, good topic for otherwise a downturn mood.

More to follow.


P.S. Sorry for the “random” rambling, after all we are talking of “random verification” :-)