Relating multi-step and single-step microprocessor correctness statements

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 2517, Issue , 2002, Pages 123-141

  Aagaard, Mark D ^a   Day, Nancy A ^b   Lou, Meng ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FORMAL METHODS;

MICROPROCESSOR VERIFICATION; MULTI-STEP; MULTIPLE INSTRUCTIONS; SINGLE-STEP; SUPERSCALAR;

COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN;

EID: 84948174903     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-36126-x_8     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. M. D. Aagaard, B. Cook, N. A. Day, and R. B. Jones. A framework for microprocessor correctness statements. In CHARME, volume 2144 of LNCS, pages 433–448. Springer, 2001.
2. M. D. Aagaard, B. Cook, N. A. Day, and R. B. Jones. A framework for superscalar microprocessor correctness statements, 2002. To appear in Software Tools for Technology Transfer.
3. T. Arons and A. Pnueli. Verifying Tomasulo’s algorithm by refinement. In Int’l Conf. On VLSI Design, pages 92–99. IEEE Comp. Soc. Press, 1999.
4. S. Berezin, E. Clarke, A. Biere, and Y. Zhu. Verification of out-of-order processor designs using model checking and a light-weight completion function. Formal Methods in System Design, 20(2):159–186, March 2002.
5. J. Burch and D. Dill. Automatic verification of pipelined microprocessor control. In CAV, volume 818 of LNCS, pages 68–80. Springer, 1994.
6. N. A. Day, M. D. Aagaard, and M. Lou. A mechanized theory for microprocessor correctness statements. Technical Report 2002-11, U. OfWaterloo, Dept. Of Comp. Sci., 2002.
7. A. Fox and N. Harman. Algebraic models of correctness for microprocessors. Formal Aspects in Computing, 12(4):298–312, 2000.
8. M. Gordon and T. Melham. Introduction to HOL: A Theorem Proving Environment for Higher Order Logic. Cambridge University Press, 1993.
9. R. Hosabettu, G. Gopalakrishnan, and M. Srivas. Verifying advanced microarchitectures that support speculation and exceptions. In CAV, volume 1855 of LNCS, pages 521–537. Springer, 2000.
10. R. Hosabettu, M. Srivas, and G. Gopalakrishnan. Decomposing the proof of correctness of pipelined microprocessors. In CAV, volume 1427 of LNCS, pages 122–134. Springer, 1998.
11. R. Hosabettu, M. Srivas, and G. Gopalakrishnan. Proof of correctness of a processor with reorder buffer using the completion functions approach. In CAV, volume 1633 of LNCS, pages 47–59. Springer, 1999.
12. R. Hosabettu, M. Srivas, and G. Gopalakrishnan. Proof of correctness of a processor without reorder buffer using the completion functions approach. In CHARME, volume 1703 of LNCS, pages 8–22. Springer, 1999.
13. R. Jones, J. Skakkebæk, and D. Dill. Reducing manual abstraction in formal verification of out-of-order execution. In FMCAD, volume 1522 of LNCS, pages 2–17. Springer, 1998.
14. R. B. Jones, J. U. Skakkebæk, and D. L. Dill. Formal verification of out-of-order execution using incremental flushing. Formal Methods in System Design, 20(2):39–58, March 2002.
15. R. Milner. An algebraic definition of simulation between programs. In Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 481–489. British Computer Society, 1971.
16. J. Sawada andW. Hunt. Trace table based approach for pipelined microprocessor verification. In CAV, volume 1254 of LNCS, pages 364–375. Springer, 1997.
17. J. Sawada and W. Hunt. Processor verification with precise exceptions and speculative execution. In CAV, volume 1427 of LNCS, pages 135–146. Springer, 1998.
18. J. Sawada and W. Hunt. Results of the verification of a complex pipelined machine model. In CHARME, volume 1703 of LNCS, pages 313–316. Springer, 1999.