This document provides an overview of formal verification from the perspective of an engineer with experience using formal verification tools over time. It defines formal verification and how it differs from simulation-based verification. It then discusses the author's experiences with formal verification from the 1990s to present day, noting how formal verification has become more usable, integrated with design flows, and adopted by more designers. The document also outlines observed benefits of formal verification and common challenges with adopting it. It concludes by predicting continued growth in capacity, capabilities, and adoption of formal verification methods.
The document discusses software testing concepts and processes. It covers topics such as testing definitions, objectives, misunderstandings about testing, defect concepts, the testing process, test planning, strategies and types, test techniques/methods, and test plans, designs and cases. The overall goal is to provide an understanding of basic software testing concepts.
Software testing is an important activity that helps evaluate software quality by identifying defects. There are various levels and objectives of testing. Some key levels include acceptance testing which checks if a system meets the customer's requirements, and regression testing which verifies that modifications have not caused unintended effects by selectively retesting the system. Reliability is an important non-functional property that can be evaluated through reliability achievement and evaluation testing using statistical measures and reliability growth models. Testing aims to "do the right job" by validating requirements and "do the job right" through verification activities.
Testing Practices for Continuous Delivery - Ken McCormackkennymccormack
A collection of workshops on
- CD pipeline architecture and design tactics for testability quality factor
- technical practices - tips for team up-skilling
- TDD sources and materials
The document discusses various aspects of software development including:
1. Software quality focuses on meeting customer requirements and expectations in terms of functionality, performance, cost and time to market.
2. Common software development process models include waterfall, prototype, spiral and agile models which are suited for different types of requirements.
3. Testing is a critical part of the development process and includes unit, integration, system and user acceptance testing. System testing involves testing functionality, usability, compatibility and other quality attributes.
This document discusses innovations and adaptations in agile testing. It covers agile testing roles and practices like testing early and often, automating tests, and continuous integration. It discusses challenges like testing exploratory and non-functional requirements within sprints. One approach presented is to test these in parallel with a sprint lag through dedicated test phases. This reduces risks of critical defects found late impacting releases. The document also discusses adaptations like managing test environments, skills development, and indicators to optimize agile testing.
The key to successful testing is effective and timely planning. Rick Craig introduces proven test planning methods and techniques, including the Master Test Plan and level-specific test plans for acceptance, system, integration, and unit testing. Rick explains how to customize an IEEE-829-style test plan and test summary report to fit your organization’s needs. Learn how to manage test activities, estimate test efforts, and achieve buy-in. Discover a practical risk analysis technique to prioritize your testing and become more effective with limited resources. Rick offers test measurement and reporting recommendations for monitoring the testing process. Discover new methods and develop renewed energy for taking your organization’s test management to the next level.
The document discusses software quality assurance and testing. It describes the software development life cycle, which includes stages like information gathering, analysis, design, coding, testing and maintenance. It then provides details about various testing techniques like black box testing, white box testing, unit testing, integration testing, system testing and user acceptance testing. It also discusses testing documents like test plan, test cases, defect report and test summary report.
The document discusses architectural test case writing. It begins by covering software development methodologies like waterfall and iterative models. It then discusses software testing, particularly architectural testing. Key aspects of architectural test cases are described such as using quality attributes to derive scenarios and test cases. An example scenario and test case template are provided. The document emphasizes that architectural test cases should validate quality attributes and non-functional requirements.
The document discusses software testing concepts and processes. It covers topics such as testing definitions, objectives, misunderstandings about testing, defect concepts, the testing process, test planning, strategies and types, test techniques/methods, and test plans, designs and cases. The overall goal is to provide an understanding of basic software testing concepts.
Software testing is an important activity that helps evaluate software quality by identifying defects. There are various levels and objectives of testing. Some key levels include acceptance testing which checks if a system meets the customer's requirements, and regression testing which verifies that modifications have not caused unintended effects by selectively retesting the system. Reliability is an important non-functional property that can be evaluated through reliability achievement and evaluation testing using statistical measures and reliability growth models. Testing aims to "do the right job" by validating requirements and "do the job right" through verification activities.
Testing Practices for Continuous Delivery - Ken McCormackkennymccormack
A collection of workshops on
- CD pipeline architecture and design tactics for testability quality factor
- technical practices - tips for team up-skilling
- TDD sources and materials
The document discusses various aspects of software development including:
1. Software quality focuses on meeting customer requirements and expectations in terms of functionality, performance, cost and time to market.
2. Common software development process models include waterfall, prototype, spiral and agile models which are suited for different types of requirements.
3. Testing is a critical part of the development process and includes unit, integration, system and user acceptance testing. System testing involves testing functionality, usability, compatibility and other quality attributes.
This document discusses innovations and adaptations in agile testing. It covers agile testing roles and practices like testing early and often, automating tests, and continuous integration. It discusses challenges like testing exploratory and non-functional requirements within sprints. One approach presented is to test these in parallel with a sprint lag through dedicated test phases. This reduces risks of critical defects found late impacting releases. The document also discusses adaptations like managing test environments, skills development, and indicators to optimize agile testing.
The key to successful testing is effective and timely planning. Rick Craig introduces proven test planning methods and techniques, including the Master Test Plan and level-specific test plans for acceptance, system, integration, and unit testing. Rick explains how to customize an IEEE-829-style test plan and test summary report to fit your organization’s needs. Learn how to manage test activities, estimate test efforts, and achieve buy-in. Discover a practical risk analysis technique to prioritize your testing and become more effective with limited resources. Rick offers test measurement and reporting recommendations for monitoring the testing process. Discover new methods and develop renewed energy for taking your organization’s test management to the next level.
The document discusses software quality assurance and testing. It describes the software development life cycle, which includes stages like information gathering, analysis, design, coding, testing and maintenance. It then provides details about various testing techniques like black box testing, white box testing, unit testing, integration testing, system testing and user acceptance testing. It also discusses testing documents like test plan, test cases, defect report and test summary report.
The document discusses architectural test case writing. It begins by covering software development methodologies like waterfall and iterative models. It then discusses software testing, particularly architectural testing. Key aspects of architectural test cases are described such as using quality attributes to derive scenarios and test cases. An example scenario and test case template are provided. The document emphasizes that architectural test cases should validate quality attributes and non-functional requirements.
Rick Craig, a consultant with over 30 years of experience in testing and test management, presented a training on essential test management and planning. The presentation covered topics such as test levels, test methodologies, test planning, and test documentation like the master test plan. It emphasized treating testing as a lifecycle process integrated throughout development.
A comprehensive formal verification solution for ARM based SOC design chiportal
This document discusses Jasper's formal verification solutions for ARM processor-based system-on-chip (SoC) designs. It describes how Jasper can be used at the IP level to verify ARM Cortex processors and at the system level to verify aspects of full SoCs such as protocol verification, deadlock detection, and connectivity verification. Customers mentioned include Ericsson, Apple, Sony, and AMCC.
This document is a resume for Mimi N. King, who has 4 years of experience as an Instrumentation and Controls Design Engineer at Browns Ferry Nuclear Site. As an I&C Design Engineer, her responsibilities include developing and overseeing design modifications, coordinating projects among departments, identifying and solving technical issues, and communicating design changes. She prepares cost estimates, evaluates industry experience to recommend changes, and performs regulatory and vendor reviews. Her qualifications include security clearances, training in analysis techniques, and experience supporting outages and projects.
Using PSL and FoCs for Functional Coverage Verification DVClub
This document discusses using PSL and FoCs for functional coverage verification. It outlines replacing a previous structural coverage strategy with one focused on areas of complexity and bugs. Monitors were written in PSL, converted to VHDL with FoCs, and documented in test plans. This improved verification quality and allowed completion ahead of schedule with no post-RIT bugs in covered areas.
The document provides information about manual testing processes and concepts. It discusses 1) why manual testing is chosen as a career, 2) the skills needed to get a manual testing job, 3) when testing occurs in the software development lifecycle, and 4) the different types and levels of testing. It also defines key terms like requirements documents, test cases, defects, environments, and software development process models.
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Cotact: rvaidya67@hotmail.com
Linked-In: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Cotact: rvaidya67@hotmail.com
Linked-In: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Cotact: rvaidya67@hotmail.com
Linked-In: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Cotact: rvaidya67@hotmail.com
Linked-In: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Test automation lessons from WebSphere Application ServerRobbie Minshall
The document discusses WebSphere testing at IBM. It provides an overview of IBM's:
- Extensive testing resources including over 200 engineers and thousands of systems.
- Daily regression testing of over 1.7 million tests.
- Transition from waterfall to agile development which reduced cycle times and resources needed for testing.
- Use of cloud resources to speed up test deployment and automation.
- Focus on creating meaningful regressions through techniques like integration acceptance tests run continuously on each build.
01 software test engineering (manual testing)Siddireddy Balu
The document discusses various topics related to manual software testing, including:
1. The software development life cycle and where testing fits in.
2. Different testing methodologies like black box, white box, and grey box testing.
3. The different levels of testing from unit to system level.
4. Types of testing like regression, compatibility, security, and performance testing.
5. The software testing life cycle process including test planning, development, execution and reporting.
OSSJP/ALS19: The Road to Safety Certification: How the Xen Project is Making...The Linux Foundation
This document summarizes a discussion around enabling functional safety certification for the Xen open source hypervisor project. Key points discussed include:
- Establishing a split development model with open and closed parts to balance community needs and safety requirements.
- Developing reference implementations and stacks supported by multiple vendors to demonstrate safety certification feasibility.
- Creating plans and processes around requirements, documentation, verification testing, and tooling integration to begin filling gaps for certification.
- Addressing challenges around funding, resources, expertise, and maintaining contributions to ensure any initial work is sustainable long-term.
- Taking an iterative, agile approach to make early progress while further securing necessary funding and support from interested parties.
The document discusses software reliability engineering and its goals of balancing reliability, availability, delivery time, and cost based on customer needs. It addresses three key questions: 1) What is software practitioners' biggest problem in meeting conflicting customer demands? 2) How does software reliability engineering approach resolving this issue? 3) What has been the experience with software reliability engineering? The process involves defining the product and users, implementing operational profiles to efficiently test critical functions, and engineering the right level of reliability through failure analysis and testing to deliver the product on time and at an acceptable cost.
The document discusses software reliability engineering and its goals of balancing reliability, availability, delivery time, and cost based on customer needs. It addresses three key questions: 1) What is software practitioners' biggest problem in meeting conflicting customer demands? 2) How does software reliability engineering approach resolving this issue? 3) What has been the experience with software reliability engineering? The process involves defining the product and users, implementing operational profiles to efficiently test critical functions, and engineering the right level of reliability through failure analysis and testing to deliver the product on time and at an acceptable cost.
Enhancing Quality and Test in Medical Device Design - Part 2.pdfICS
Join us for the second installment of our webinar series, during which we explore the interesting and controversial aspects of quality and test solutions used in engineering for medical devices.
In this session, we'll weigh the pros, cons, motivations and alternatives for the canonical forms of software tests.
We'll also differentiate Medical Device Verification from other forms of testing to ensure you don't pay twice for the same result. And, we'll discuss how the concept of "reliability" in medical devices has evolved for software, and how "durability" might have more value.
If you’re developing medical devices and are trying to improve the value and efficacy of your quality budget, this session is a can't-miss!
Continuous Performance Testing in DevOps - Lee BarnesQA or the Highway
The document discusses how traditional performance testing does not align well with DevOps approaches and proposes continuous performance testing as a better alternative. Continuous performance testing involves evaluating performance at each stage of the development pipeline as appropriate, providing more frequent and visible performance feedback across builds. The document outlines best practices for implementing continuous performance testing such as incorporating performance requirements early, integrating performance skills into teams, and starting with smaller tests that are expanded over time with feedback.
Rick Craig, a consultant with over 30 years of experience in testing and test management, presented a training on essential test management and planning. The presentation covered topics such as test levels, test methodologies, test planning, and test documentation like the master test plan. It emphasized treating testing as a lifecycle process integrated throughout development.
A comprehensive formal verification solution for ARM based SOC design chiportal
This document discusses Jasper's formal verification solutions for ARM processor-based system-on-chip (SoC) designs. It describes how Jasper can be used at the IP level to verify ARM Cortex processors and at the system level to verify aspects of full SoCs such as protocol verification, deadlock detection, and connectivity verification. Customers mentioned include Ericsson, Apple, Sony, and AMCC.
This document is a resume for Mimi N. King, who has 4 years of experience as an Instrumentation and Controls Design Engineer at Browns Ferry Nuclear Site. As an I&C Design Engineer, her responsibilities include developing and overseeing design modifications, coordinating projects among departments, identifying and solving technical issues, and communicating design changes. She prepares cost estimates, evaluates industry experience to recommend changes, and performs regulatory and vendor reviews. Her qualifications include security clearances, training in analysis techniques, and experience supporting outages and projects.
Using PSL and FoCs for Functional Coverage Verification DVClub
This document discusses using PSL and FoCs for functional coverage verification. It outlines replacing a previous structural coverage strategy with one focused on areas of complexity and bugs. Monitors were written in PSL, converted to VHDL with FoCs, and documented in test plans. This improved verification quality and allowed completion ahead of schedule with no post-RIT bugs in covered areas.
The document provides information about manual testing processes and concepts. It discusses 1) why manual testing is chosen as a career, 2) the skills needed to get a manual testing job, 3) when testing occurs in the software development lifecycle, and 4) the different types and levels of testing. It also defines key terms like requirements documents, test cases, defects, environments, and software development process models.
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Cotact: rvaidya67@hotmail.com
Linked-In: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Cotact: rvaidya67@hotmail.com
Linked-In: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Cotact: rvaidya67@hotmail.com
Linked-In: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Cotact: rvaidya67@hotmail.com
Linked-In: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam
Agile Testing Leadership Lessons for the Test & QA Professionals
Silicon India Software Testing Conference - SOFTEC - 2 July 2011
Bangalore
Presentation from Speaker: Vaidyanathan Ramalingam,
Director Engineering (Test), Huawei Technologies R&D, Bangalore
Coverage:
1) Waterfall Testing Vs Agile Testing
2) Testing Checklist - 5W & 2H
3) Trade Off Economics in Testing
4) Software Testing Eco System
5) RCA (Root Cause Analysis)
Test automation lessons from WebSphere Application ServerRobbie Minshall
The document discusses WebSphere testing at IBM. It provides an overview of IBM's:
- Extensive testing resources including over 200 engineers and thousands of systems.
- Daily regression testing of over 1.7 million tests.
- Transition from waterfall to agile development which reduced cycle times and resources needed for testing.
- Use of cloud resources to speed up test deployment and automation.
- Focus on creating meaningful regressions through techniques like integration acceptance tests run continuously on each build.
01 software test engineering (manual testing)Siddireddy Balu
The document discusses various topics related to manual software testing, including:
1. The software development life cycle and where testing fits in.
2. Different testing methodologies like black box, white box, and grey box testing.
3. The different levels of testing from unit to system level.
4. Types of testing like regression, compatibility, security, and performance testing.
5. The software testing life cycle process including test planning, development, execution and reporting.
OSSJP/ALS19: The Road to Safety Certification: How the Xen Project is Making...The Linux Foundation
This document summarizes a discussion around enabling functional safety certification for the Xen open source hypervisor project. Key points discussed include:
- Establishing a split development model with open and closed parts to balance community needs and safety requirements.
- Developing reference implementations and stacks supported by multiple vendors to demonstrate safety certification feasibility.
- Creating plans and processes around requirements, documentation, verification testing, and tooling integration to begin filling gaps for certification.
- Addressing challenges around funding, resources, expertise, and maintaining contributions to ensure any initial work is sustainable long-term.
- Taking an iterative, agile approach to make early progress while further securing necessary funding and support from interested parties.
The document discusses software reliability engineering and its goals of balancing reliability, availability, delivery time, and cost based on customer needs. It addresses three key questions: 1) What is software practitioners' biggest problem in meeting conflicting customer demands? 2) How does software reliability engineering approach resolving this issue? 3) What has been the experience with software reliability engineering? The process involves defining the product and users, implementing operational profiles to efficiently test critical functions, and engineering the right level of reliability through failure analysis and testing to deliver the product on time and at an acceptable cost.
The document discusses software reliability engineering and its goals of balancing reliability, availability, delivery time, and cost based on customer needs. It addresses three key questions: 1) What is software practitioners' biggest problem in meeting conflicting customer demands? 2) How does software reliability engineering approach resolving this issue? 3) What has been the experience with software reliability engineering? The process involves defining the product and users, implementing operational profiles to efficiently test critical functions, and engineering the right level of reliability through failure analysis and testing to deliver the product on time and at an acceptable cost.
Enhancing Quality and Test in Medical Device Design - Part 2.pdfICS
Join us for the second installment of our webinar series, during which we explore the interesting and controversial aspects of quality and test solutions used in engineering for medical devices.
In this session, we'll weigh the pros, cons, motivations and alternatives for the canonical forms of software tests.
We'll also differentiate Medical Device Verification from other forms of testing to ensure you don't pay twice for the same result. And, we'll discuss how the concept of "reliability" in medical devices has evolved for software, and how "durability" might have more value.
If you’re developing medical devices and are trying to improve the value and efficacy of your quality budget, this session is a can't-miss!
Continuous Performance Testing in DevOps - Lee BarnesQA or the Highway
The document discusses how traditional performance testing does not align well with DevOps approaches and proposes continuous performance testing as a better alternative. Continuous performance testing involves evaluating performance at each stage of the development pipeline as appropriate, providing more frequent and visible performance feedback across builds. The document outlines best practices for implementing continuous performance testing such as incorporating performance requirements early, integrating performance skills into teams, and starting with smaller tests that are expanded over time with feedback.
Gopikrishnan Balasubramanian is a senior technical lead with over 10 years of experience in the IT industry, including telecom and video domains. He has expertise in C/C++, Python, cloud technologies like Docker and Kubernetes. Some of his projects include hybrid visual quality enhancement for set-top boxes and IP set-tops. He has extensive experience in the full SDLC, from requirements to packaging final products. He is proficient in languages, cloud tools, protocols, scripting, defect tracking, and build tools.
This document provides an overview of Marc Perillo's experience and qualifications as a software developer. Over 30+ years, Marc has worked on dozens of projects across various industries, generating over $250 million in revenue. He has expertise in areas like object-oriented design, project management, embedded systems, real-time applications, and multi-tasking systems. Marc has successfully led the development of critical systems for the military and resolved issues that threatened project viability. He is skilled in all phases of the software development lifecycle from requirements to deployment.
The document discusses implementing CI/CD and DevOps practices in a Salesforce environment. It notes that Salesforce applications have become more complex, integrated, and business critical over time. This evolving landscape requires more robust development and operations processes. The document explores different technical aspects of Salesforce DevOps including automated testing, version control, code maintainability, CI/CD, and disaster recovery. It also discusses benefits organizations can realize by adopting DevOps such as increased productivity, quality, and resilience. Finally, it considers how different sized teams can implement DevOps and outlines an agenda for further discussion on the topic.
This document provides guidance for a company preparing for their first mobile testing project. It outlines a roadmap for mobile quality assurance including establishing a testing vision, adopting agile testing practices, increasing test automation, and creating a continuous automated regression testing model. The roadmap recommends leveraging tools like Perfecto, QTP, and a business process testing approach to improve test design, reuse, coverage, and reduce costs and timelines.
As software developer,
1)how to design your career developement ladder;
2)how to build your domain expertise;
3)how to observe industrial techinical trend
End-to-end testing in complex GitOps environmentsEtienne Tremel
This document discusses end-to-end testing in complex GitOps environments. It covers topics like GitOps, promoting images across environments, image promotion using GitOps, and testing in continuous deployment pipelines. It also discusses moving from simple to complex environments with multiple clusters, teams, and configurations, and provides an example continuous deployment implementation for such complex scenarios.
This presentation is about a lecture I gave within the "Software systems and services" immigration course at the Gran Sasso Science Institute, L'Aquila (Italy): http://cs.gssi.infn.it/.
http://www.ivanomalavolta.com
The document discusses various software development life cycle (SDLC) models including waterfall, prototyping, spiral, and agile models. It provides details on the phases and processes involved in each model. Specifically, it describes the spiral model in detail, noting that it consists of multiple phases or loops with each phase divided into four quadrants focusing on requirements, risk analysis, prototyping, and evaluation. The spiral model allows for frequent risk analysis and release of prototypes to help manage risks on large, complex projects.
Software Development Models by Graham et alEmi Rahmi
Software Development Models - Graham et al Foundation of Software Testing
http://sif.uin-suska.ac.id/
http://fst.uin-suska.ac.id/
http://www.uin-suska.ac.id/
Software Development Models - Graham et al Foundation of Software Testing
http://sif.uin-suska.ac.id/
http://fst.uin-suska.ac.id/
http://www.uin-suska.ac.id/
Tiara Ramadhani - Program Studi S1 Sistem Informasi - Fakultas Sains dan Tekn...Tiara Ramadhani
Tugas ini di buat untuk memenuhi salah satu tugas mata kuliah pada Program Studi S1 Sistem Informasi.
Oleh ;
Nama : Tiara Ramadhani.
NIM ; 11453201723
SIF VII E
UIN SUSKA RIAU
This document provides an overview of testing methods for mainframe applications. It discusses how testing needs have changed from the past where testing involved examining batch job outputs or online screen outputs, to modern approaches like test automation, virtualization, and DevOps. It covers different levels of testing maturity and factors to consider when planning tests. Black box and white box testing techniques are described, such as model-based testing, use case testing, and debugging. The presentation emphasizes the importance of testing to ensure stability, reliability, and compliance with changing requirements.
Similar to I Never Thought I Would Grow Up to be This Formal (20)
IP Reuse Impact on Design Verification Management Across the EnterpriseDVClub
The document discusses challenges with IP reuse dependency management across hardware design projects. It notes that verification reuse is often neglected and that finding and fixing issues on complex projects can be difficult without proper dependency tracing of IP instances, designs, and versions. The presentation recommends establishing processes and checklists for IP verification and design history tracking to facilitate reuse. It also shares survey results about the organizational impacts of improved IP reuse dependency management, such as more efficient engineering resource usage and 30% faster time to market.
The document describes Cisco's Base Environment methodology for digital verification. It aims to standardize the verification process, promote reuse, and improve predictability. The methodology defines a common testbench topology and infrastructure that is vertically scalable from unit to system level and horizontally scalable across projects. It provides templates, scripts, verification IP and documentation to help teams set up verification environments quickly and leverage existing best practices. The standardized approach facilitates extensive code and test reuse and delivers benefits such as faster ramp-up times, improved planning, and higher return on verification IP development.
Intel Xeon Pre-Silicon Validation: Introduction and ChallengesDVClub
This document discusses the challenges of pre-silicon validation for Intel Xeon processors. Some key challenges include: reusing design components from previous projects which may have incomplete or poorly written code; managing cross-site validation teams; developing sufficient stimulus and checking while minimizing overhead; achieving high functional coverage within tight validation windows; and ensuring tests can be ported between pre-silicon and post-silicon environments. The validation process aims to quickly comprehend new features and design changes while validating the full chip design before tapeout.
The document discusses how shaders are created and validated for graphics processing units (GPUs). Shaders are created by applications and sent to the GPU through graphics APIs and drivers. They are then executed by the GPU's shader processors. The validation process uses layered testbenches at the sub-block, block, and system levels for maximum controllability and observability. It also employs a reference model methodology using C++ models and hardware emulation to debug designs faster than simulation alone. This methodology helps improve the graphics development schedule.
This document appears to be a presentation given by AMD on verification challenges for graphics ASICs. The presentation covers an overview of AMD, GPU systems, 3D graphics basics, and verification challenges. It discusses the size and complexity of GPUs, layered code and testbenches used for verification, and the use of hardware emulation and functional coverage.
1. The document discusses methodologies for hardware verification and developing an efficient verification flow.
2. It recommends defining a conceptual framework for the flow to standardize some aspects while allowing for diversity and innovation.
3. Using transaction level modeling and assertions in early stages like the specification model can help validation before the RTL design stage. Assertions can be written at different levels from the specification to the RTL and testbench.
Praveen Vishakantaiah, President of Intel India, discussed the challenges of validating next generation CPUs. Validation is increasingly complex due to factors like rising design complexity from multi-core processors and chipset integration, as well as shorter time to market windows. Validation efforts are also not scaling incrementally with post-silicon development. Addressing these challenges requires experienced architects and validators working closely together, instrumentation of design models to enable validation, reuse of validation tools, and scaling of emulation and formal verification techniques. Validation is critical to meeting customer satisfaction and business goals around schedule and costs.
This document discusses using the IP-XACT standard to address challenges in verification automation. IP-XACT allows generating verification platforms, register tests, and other elements from a single IP description. It standardizes IP information exchange and reduces duplication. Using IP-XACT, a verification flow is proposed where the testbench, models, and register tests are automatically generated from an IP-XACT file, improving consistency and reducing turnaround times. IP-XACT is now an IEEE standard developed by the SPIRIT consortium to describe IPs in a vendor-neutral way and enable maximum automation.
Validation and Design in a Small Team EnvironmentDVClub
The document discusses validation and design in small teams with limited resources. It proposes constraining designs to a single clock rate, standardized interfaces, and automated test cases to streamline verification. This reduces complexity and verification costs, allowing designs to be completed more quickly despite limited experience. Standardizing interfaces and separating algorithm from implementation verification improves efficiency enough to overcome typical verification to design ratios.
This document discusses trends in mixed signal validation. It begins with an overview of mixed signal systems that contain both analog and digital components. The evolution of mixed signal validation is then described, from early approaches that simulated analog and digital components separately to modern tools that can jointly simulate both domains using languages like Verilog-AMS. The key steps in mixed signal validation are outlined, including modeling components in Verilog-AMS, validating blocks, and performing system-level validation. Throughout, the importance of accurate models for verification is emphasized. Examples of mixed signal modeling and a charge pump PLL validation environment are also provided.
Verification teams at chip design companies now work globally, presenting communication challenges. Time zone differences make real-time collaboration difficult, and documentation through tools like TWiki can suffer if not well-organized. However, global teams also provide benefits by making more people and creative ideas available. Companies like AMD are addressing these issues through centers of expertise that standardize methodologies, tools, and components to facilitate collaboration across sites, while still allowing projects flexibility and innovation. Regular reviews help continuously improve processes as new techniques are adopted or abandoned.
Greg Tierney of Avid presented on their experiences using SystemC for design verification. Some key points:
1) Avid chose SystemC to enhance their existing C++ verification code and take advantage of its built-in verification capabilities like randomization and multi-threading.
2) SystemC helped Avid solve problems like connecting entire HDL modules to their testbench and monitoring foreign signals.
3) While SystemC provided benefits, Avid also encountered issues with its compile/link performance and large library size. Overall, Avid found SystemC reliable for design verification over three years of use.
This document provides an overview of the verification strategy for PCI-Express. It discusses the PCI-Express protocol, including the physical, data link, transaction, and software layers. It outlines the verification paradigm, including functional verification using constrained random testing, assertions, asynchronous/power domain simulations, and performance verification. It also discusses compliance verification through electrical, data link, transaction, and system architecture checklists. Finally, it discusses design for verification through a modular and scalable architecture to promote reusability and reduce verification effort and complexity.
SystemVerilog Assertions (SVA) in the Design/Verification ProcessDVClub
1) Visual SVA tools like Zazz allow designers to create complex SystemVerilog assertions through a graphical interface, addressing issues with SVA syntax.
2) Zazz also enables debugging assertions as they are created by generating constrained random tests, improving assertion quality before use in verification.
3) Using assertions improved the author's verification and debugging process, identifying errors sooner and in corner cases, and provided additional value to IP customers through early fault detection.
The document discusses methodologies for improving efficiency in verification testing at Cisco, including using reusable components from other projects, avoiding duplicate specifications, providing flexible testbenches, and automating tasks. It provides examples used at Cisco such as separating testbench creation into three stages, using testflow to synchronize component behavior, reusing unit-level checkers, linking transactions between checkers, and generating common infrastructure from templates to reduce designer effort. The biggest efficiency gains come from methodologies that push shared behavior into reusable components and standardize common elements.
1) Pre-silicon verification is increasingly important for post-silicon validation as design complexity grows and schedules shrink. Bugs that escape pre-silicon verification can significantly impact post-silicon schedules and effort.
2) Mixed-signal effects, power-on/reset sequences, and design-for-testability features need to be verified pre-silicon to avoid difficult to reproduce bugs during post-silicon validation.
3) Case studies demonstrate how low investment in pre-silicon verification of areas like power-on/reset sequences and design-for-testability features can lead to longer post-silicon schedules due to unexpected bugs.
The document discusses Sun Microsystems' UltraSPARC T1 processor. It provides an overview of the processor's features, including its implementation of chip multi-threading with up to 8 cores and 32 threads. It describes the processor's design choices such as shared caches and memory controllers. It also discusses Sun's strategy for verifying the processor's architecture and microarchitecture through directed testing, coverage metrics, and other techniques. Finally, it notes some of the benefits of chip multi-threading for performance, cost, reliability, and power efficiency.
Intel Atom Processor Pre-Silicon Verification ExperienceDVClub
This document discusses the verification methodology and results for the Intel Atom processor. It describes the challenges of verifying a new microarchitecture with power management features on an aggressive schedule. The methodology involved cluster-level validation with functional coverage, architectural validation using an instruction set generator, and power management validation. Verification metrics like coverage and bug rates were tracked. The results included booting Windows and Linux 10 hours after receiving silicon, with few functional bugs found post-silicon that weren't corner cases. Debug and survivability features helped reduce escapes.
This document discusses using assertions in analog mixed-signal (AMS) verification. It describes how assertions can be used to check interface assumptions, power mode transitions, and timing relationships for AMS blocks. Assertions provide compact and precise checks that can be reused across different verification methodologies. The document also provides an example of using Verilog-AMS monitors to digitize continuous signals from an AMS model so they can be checked using SystemVerilog assertions.
This document discusses challenges and requirements for low-power design and verification. It begins with an overview of how leakage is significantly increasing due to process scaling and how active power is now a major portion of power budgets. New strategies are needed to address process variations and enhance scaling approaches. The verification flows must support multi-voltage domain analysis and rule-based checking across voltage states while capturing island ordering and microarchitecture sequence errors. Low-power implementation introduces challenges for design representation, implementation across tools, and verification. Methodologies and design flows must be adapted to account for power and ground nets becoming functional signals.
1. I never thought I would grow up to be this formal.
A reflection on Formal Verification experiences
Tim Stremcha – May 2010
2. 2
Agenda topics
Ø Definition
Ø Formal Verification use retrospective
Ø Observed benefits
Ø Use models across the industry
Ø Deployment challenges
Ø Formal future
Ø Q & A
3. 3
Definition
Ø Formal Verification (FV) is a method of conclusively
proving that a condition in a design can not be violated by
legal input stimulus
― Legal input stimulus defined with input constraint assertions
― Checks are also inserted in the form of assertions
Examples:
- A FIFO will never overflow
- bus protocol can not be violated
Ø This is not a discussion about formal Logical Equivalency
Checking (LEC)
― LEC has traditionally been referred to as formal
verification and the name overload still causes confusion
4. 4
Definition (cont)
Ø How is FV different from dynamic simulation based
verification?
― Dynamic simulations conclude that the range of
stimulus used does not propagate a functional
violation to a checker
― Formal verification can conclude that there is no
possibility of a functional violation being propagated to
a checker (assertion).
i.e. It can prove there is no legal sequence of
stimulus that can possibly violate an assertion
5. 5
Definition (cont)
Ø Iterative testing lowers
probability of undetected flaw
Ø Exhaustive search is not
practical in most cases
Ø Cones of influence to
assertions are isolated and
algorithmically proven to hold
true or have exceptions
6. 6
Formal Verification retrospective
Ø Why look back?
― It helps gain perspective on the trajectory of FV
technology which can help us assess where it's most
likely to be useful today, and also help predict where
it's going
― It provides a context to relay some direct experiences
with some FV use models
― It reveals the roots of some common reservations
about FV and helps us weigh their relevancy today
7. 7
Formal Verification retrospective
(cont)
Disclaimers:
Ø These reflections are based on my experiences. This is
not a comprehensive treatise on the evolution and use of
FV nor is it a comparison of capabilities between vendors.
Ø Most of my work with FV has been oriented toward
improving the design process efficiency and accuracy,
with considerably less emphasis on final verification sign-
off and coverage closure. While there is a great deal of
overlap between these goals, the ability of FV to
contribute more directly to the latter is underrepresented
here.
8. 8
Formal Verification retrospective
(cont)
1) Early FV use – circa 1996
Ø Backdrop:
― Testbenches were generally a mix of straight Verilog, PLI
models, and proprietary solutions
― Design synthesis from RTL was a relatively new norm
― FV tools for hardware design were in their infancy
Ø Environment:
― Employed esoteric and proprietary constraint/assertion/query
languages
― Could not be leveraged by the companion workhorse simulation
testbenches
― Required top-notch resources which were removed from core
contribution efforts
― Woefully limited capacity
9. 9
Formal Verification retrospective
(cont)
1) Early FV use – circa 1996
Ø Results/conclusions:
― FV gave very low return in terms of actual DV or design process
efficiency improvement
― Very high monetary and time costs
― Provided negative stereotypes of FV that persist today
― FV is “weird”
― It requires sophisticated specialization
― It’s questionable whether it will provide much benefit
― It doesn’t integrate very well with the rest of the design and
verification process – it’s a separate effort
10. 10
Formal Verification retrospective
(cont)
2) Give it to the gurus – circa 2005
Ø Backdrop:
― FV was trickling into design/DV flows though fewer than 30% of
companies had any FV use according to a Deepchip survey at
the time
― The major CAD vendors were actively investing and staking
claims in FV through acquisitions and/or organic development.
― Cadence acquired Verplex (Blacktie) in 2003
― Synopsys made full customer debut of Magellan in 2004
― Mentor Graphics acquired 0-in in 2004
― Some “indy” tools stood tall including Jasper and Real Intent
― Recent standardization of assertion languages meant that
FV preparation (constraints and checking assertions)
provided value in the dynamic simulation environment
11. 11
Formal Verification retrospective
(cont)
2) Give it to the gurus – circa 2005
Ø Environment:
― Specialists with highly sophisticated knowledge of FV algorithms
and processes were hired to provide FV capabilities to the team
by owning the tool setup and operation
― This specialized group reached in to provide verification in
parallel with the DV team by targeting every assertion.
Ø Results/conclusions:
― Provided real value to the design and verification processes, but
relied on significant specialized expertise
― Successful at starting to bridge the gap between FV as an
academic expedition and a practical application within real
design flows
― Separation of skills between FV enablers and the design/DV
team was too wide for widespread deployment
12. 12
Formal Verification retrospective
(cont)
3) Designer owns it all – circa 2006
Ø Backdrop:
― Standardized assertion use by designers was becoming more
commonplace
― A large portion of the FV enabling work (i.e. the assertion
implementation) was coincidentally being undertaken based
on its own merits and value
― The FV tools were maturing and reaching out to the design/dv
community in a more user friendly way.
13. 13
Formal Verification retrospective
(cont)
3) Designer owns it all – circa 2006
Ø Environment:
― Verification of the block was to be done by the customer, but
wasn’t available during the block design, so FV was the sole DV
method used during that part of the design process
― The designer implemented a full set of assertions for the design,
set up the formal environment, and ran the tool
― The design was quite configurable via control registers which
presented a verification challenge in any environment. With FV
all configurations were solved simultaneously.
14. 14
Formal Verification retrospective
(cont)
3) Designer owns it all – circa 2006
Ø Results/conclusions:
― Quite effective. No logic bugs were found during post-FV
verification
― Provided a tight, efficient bug identification and repair loop for
the designer
― You still probably don’t want to try this at home
― Independent verification was only achieved during very late stage
integration testing. This propagated too much risk forward for
universal adoption.
― Loading all FV related tasks onto logic designers unnecessarily
lumps it onto a critical path resource
15. 15
Formal Verification retrospective
(cont)
4) FV enabled designer – circa today
Ø Backdrop:
― Robust assertion methodology in use within our design group
― More of the team is familiar with the application of FV
― FV tools continue to improve capacity and usability
Ø Environment:
― FV “enabler” supports each project
― Responsible for assertions on some or all block-to-block interfaces
― Sets up initial FV tool environment for each designer
― Provides first line of support to users
― These tasks can be shared across multiple people – flexible load sharing
― Could be considered a guru-lite approach
― Each designer has near push-button access to some level of FV
16. 16
Formal Verification retrospective
(cont)
4) FV enabled designer – circa today
Ø Results/conclusions:
― Provides the tight bug identification and repair loop of the
“Designer does it all” model, but allows better work sharing
― Specialization is limited and the work on the interface assertions
are leveraged by the FV environments as well as the dynamic
testbenches
― Allows a path for FV proliferation without excessive overhead on
every user
― Can be supplemented by dedicated FV work for difficult
properties that are beyond the capabilities of newer users
17. 17
Observed benefits of using FV
Ø Check of the checkers
― The formal tools are very proficient at identifying underconstraint
situations and providing short counter-example traces
― This function is underrated and is even sometimes counted as
solely a FV startup cost and therefore a FV detractor!
― Better input constraints mean better checks on the driving block,
whether that’s another block or the testbench
Ø More granular ad hoc test environments
― Replaces designer “preverification” test environments
― Decouples initial testing from the availability of other design
blocks and the full testbench
Ø Closed loop, designer controlled testing (stealthy benefit)
18. 18
Observed benefits of using FV
Ø Higher quality input constraints, design and checker
assertions enter the dynamic simulation environment
― Expectations and definitions are unambiguously conveyed to
verification and other designers via full input constraint set
― Illegal stimulus flagged immediately at the inputs of blocks
during dynamic simulation and IP integration (stealthy benefit)
Ø Bounded proofs and FV bug hunting offer orthogonal
testing and assurances relative to dynamic simulations.
Ø There’s nothing like a proof
― Exhaustive proof capability was an original core offering of FV and is
still a main attraction
19. 19
Use models across the industry
From “Mixing Formal and Dynamic
Verification” by Bill Murray
Respondent companies:
Alcatel-Lucent, Analog Devices,
ARM, Cisco, DE Shaw Research
(DESRES), Fujitsu Microelectronics
Europe, HP, IBM, Infineon, Intel,
nVidia, Qualcomm, Saab, Silicon
Logic Engineering (Tundra),
STMicroelectronics and Sun
Microsystems
Disclosure: There is some element of self
fulfilling consistency since I was one of
those surveyed.
Note: numbers in parenthesis on the left
indicate use model index, not respondent
counts
20. 20
Use models across the industry
From “Mixing Formal and Dynamic
Verification” by Bill Murray
My apologies for the eye chart!
The main point is the high value
attributed to use during early design
(i.e. Early block-level checking and
Block exploration/bug hunting)
juxtaposed with no votes for late
stage Sign-off criterion.
21. 21
Launch and deployment challenges
Ø It’s a change.
Ø Lingering perception that FV requires super-specialized
skills and is narrowly applicable.
Ø Requires multi-team learning, and cooperation.
Fortunately, standardization has made this knowledge
portable and likely to be valuable for the foreseeable
future
Ø The discipline and completeness that FV enforces on the
enabling work can be frustrating
― It’s easier to create “pretty good” constraints than to build full
constraints. The extra effort to close that gap doesn’t always seem
worth it on the surface
22. 22
Launch and deployment challenges
Ø Management buy in
― Enabling work (constraints, assertions) is sometimes perceived
as simply FV overhead
― Adoption is misperceived as “all or nothing”
― Assertion methodology can be adopted and improved without
regard to actual FV use
― FV can be applied gradually through use on select blocks, though
the tool cost is a step function
― Some important benefits are stealthy
― Resources are always scarce and “a bird in the hand”
contributing directly to a more traditional methodology is often
more attractive than an assignment to something new and less
well understood
― Money for something “we didn’t need in the past”
23. 23
Formal Future, continuing up
Ø Where will FV go from here?
Formal Verification will…
― Gain capacity and capabilities
― Based on FV research advances (algorithms, programming efficiencies, etc)
― By fully absorbing the power of the compute capacity wave
― Faster per human resource than dynamic testbenches/tests?
― Become more seamlessly enlisted in the [OUV]MM type
testbench environments
― Some level of constraint language amalgamation would be helpful
― Continue to be more widely adopted. The more immediately
observable curve will be the expanded use of the enabling
assertions and constraints.
― Become essential to your methodology