A computationally ef~cient method based on commitment re~nement maps for verifying pipelined machines.

We introduce a new method of automating the verification of term-level pipelined machine models that is based on commitment refinement maps. Our method is much simpler to implement than current alternatives. More importantly, as our extensive experiments show, our method leads to more than a 30-fold improvement in verification times over the standard approaches to pipeline machine verification, which use refinement maps based on flushing and commitment. In addition, we can verify machines that are too complex to directly verify using flushing-based refinement maps

[1]  Sandip Ray,et al.  Deductive Verification of Pipelined Machines Using First-Order Quantification , 2004, CAV.

[2]  Donald S. Fussell,et al.  Formal verification of an advanced pipelined machine , 1999 .

[3]  Panagiotis Manolios.  Correctness of Pipelined Machines , 2000, FMCAD.

[4]  Mark Aagaard,et al.  A Framework for Microprocessor Correctness Statements , 2001, CHARME.

[5]  Miroslav N. Velev,et al.  Formal verification of an Intel XScale processor model with scoreboarding, specialized execution pipelines, and impress data-memory exceptions , 2003, First ACM and IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Co-Design, 2003. MEMOCODE '03. Proceedings..

[6]  Ganesh Gopalakrishnan,et al.  Proof of Correctness of a Processor with Reorder Buffer Using the Completion Functions Approach , 1999, CAV 1999.

[7]  Panagiotis Manolios,et al.  Automatic verification of safety and liveness for XScale-like processor models using WEB refinements , 2004, Proceedings Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition.

[8]  Sanjit A. Seshia,et al.  Modeling and Verifying Systems Using a Logic of Counter Arithmetic with Lambda Expressions and Uninterpreted Functions , 2002, CAV.

[9]  Shirley Dex,et al.  JR 旅客販売総合システム（マルス）における運用及び管理について , 1991 .

[10]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  Characterizing Finite Kripke Structures in Propositional Temporal Logic , 1988, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[11]  Panagiotis Manolios.  A Compositional Theory of Refinement for Branching Time , 2003, CHARME.

[12]  Sharad Malik,et al.  Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver , 2001, Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference (IEEE Cat. No.01CH37232).

[13]  David L. Dill,et al.  Automatic verification of Pipelined Microprocessor Control , 1994, CAV.

[14]  Jun Sawada,et al.  Processor Verification with Precise Exeptions and Speculative Execution , 1998, CAV.

[15]  Nikil D. Dutt,et al.  Modeling and Verification of Pipelined Embedded Processors in the Presence of Hazards and Exceptions , 2002, DIPES.

[16]  Kedar S. Namjoshi.  A Simple Characterization of Stuttering Bisimulation , 1997, FSTTCS.

[17]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Assume-Guarantee Refinement Between Different Time Scales , 1999, CAV.

[18]  Panagiotis Manolios,et al.  Refinement maps for efficient verification of processor models , 2005, Design, Automation and Test in Europe.

[19]  Sanjit A. Seshia,et al.  Modeling and Verification of Out-of-Order Microprocessors in UCLID , 2002, FMCAD.

[20]  Jun Sawada.  Verification of a simple pipelined machine model , 2000 .

[21]  Panagiotis Manolios.  Mechanical verification of reactive systems , 2001 .

[22]  Kenneth L. McMillan,et al.  Verification of an Implementation of Tomasulo's Algorithm by Compositional Model Checking , 1998, CAV.

[23]  Mark Aagaard,et al.  Synchronization-at-Retirement for Pipeline Verification , 2004, FMCAD.

[24]  Robin Milner,et al.  Communication and concurrency , 1989, PHI Series in computer science.

[25]  Randal E. Bryant,et al.  Exploiting Positive Equality in a Logic of Equality with Uninterpreted Functions , 1999, CAV.

[26]  Randal E. Bryant,et al.  Formal verification of an ARM processor , 1999, Proceedings Twelfth International Conference on VLSI Design. (Cat. No.PR00013).