US5331568A
Expired / Lapsed
US
⏱️ 0.0 years remaining
Apparatus and method for determining sequential hardware equivalence
Assignee: Rateze Remote Mgmt LLC
•
Filing: 1991-06-18
•
Granted: 1994-07-19
•
Expires: 2011-06-18
Abstract
Abstract A method for determining sequential hardware equivalence between two designs and whether one design can replace another design is disclosed whereby the designs are compared utilizing OBDD representations of the designs. The set of states in each of the designs that are equivalent to each other, equivalent-state-pairs, is first determined and it is then determined whether there exists a sequence of inputs that can take all states pairs to the equivalent-state-pair set. This results in a declaration of equivalence in the two designs. An essential reset sequence is then determined, which is then represented by the sequence of inputs to move the designs to a reset state. This, therefore, gives an essential reset sequence for the design and also gives the essential reset states for the design. The essential reset states of the design can then be compared to all states of the designs and, if they are equal, the design is replaceable.
Inventors
- 👤 Carl Pixley
Bibliographic Details
Application Number
—
Jurisdiction
US
Data Source
google_patents
Last Synchronized
2026-11-01 17:28
CPC Classifications
G; G06; G06F; G06F30/00; G06F30/30; G06F30/32; G06F30/33; G06F30/3323
Claims Analysis
Total Claims: 17
Claim 1
Independent Claim
160 words
A method for comparing two sequential hardware designs to determine they are equivalent, comprising the steps of: providing a first sequential hardware design; providing a second sequential hardware design compatible to the first hardware design, having the same number of inputs and the same number of outputs; comparing the first sequential hardware design to the second sequential hardware design as a design pair to provide a representation of the total sequential behavior of the design pair; determining the equivalent-state-pair set of state pairs in the design pair that, for any sequence of inputs to the design pair, will result in the outputs of the first and second sequential hardware designs being equivalent for all state pairs reached by the set of inputs within said sequence; and determining if any state pairs of the design pair are included in the equivalent-state-pair set and, if not, indicate that the first sequential hardware design is not equivalent to the second sequential hardware design.
Claim 2
Independent Claim
160 words
A method for comparing two sequential hardware designs to determine they are equivalent, comprising the steps of: providing a first sequential hardware design; providing a second sequential hardware design compatible to the first hardware design, having the same number of inputs and the same number of outputs; comparing the first sequential hardware design to the second sequential hardware design as a design pair to provide a representation of the total sequential behavior of the design pair; determining the equivalent-state-pair set of state pairs in the design pair that, for any sequence of inputs to the design pair, will result in the outputs of the first and second sequential hardware designs being equivalent for all state pairs reached by the set of inputs within said sequence; and determining if any state pairs of the design pair are included in the equivalent-state-pair set and, if not, indicate that the first sequential hardware design is not equivalent to the second sequential hardware design.
Claim 3
Dependent Claim
15 words
The method of claim 1, wherein the first and second hardware designs are the same.
Claim 4
Dependent Claim
101 words
The method of claim 1, and further comprising the steps of. if the equivalent-state-pair set is not empty, determine as the alignable-pairs set, the set of state pairs that can be transformed into the equivalent-state-pair set in less than a predetermined number of cycles; determine if the state pairs in the alignable-pair set is equal to the set of all state pairs for the design pair; and declare the first and second sequential hardware designs in the design pair equivalent if the state pairs in the alignable-pairs set is equal to the set of all state pairs for the design pair.
Claim 5
Dependent Claim
45 words
The method of claim 3, and further comprising declaring that one of the first and second .sequential hardware designs in the design pair is not essentially resemble if any of the state pairs in the design pair are not in the set of alignable pairs.
Claim 6
Dependent Claim
30 words
The method of claim 3, and further comprising the step of determining a sequence of inputs that will transform all state pairs in the design pair into the equivalent-state-pair set.
Claim 7
Dependent Claim
32 words
The method of claim 1, and further comprising providing a representation of the total sequential behavior of the first and second sequential hardware designs, which are utilized in the step of comparing.
Claim 8
Dependent Claim
38 words
The method of claim 1 wherein the step of comparing comprises: determining the transition relationship of the design pair; and determining the output function of each of the first and second sequential hardware designs in the design pair.
Claim 9
Dependent Claim
25 words
The method of claim 7 wherein the step of determining the transition relationship is operable to represent the transition relationship as a binary decision diagram.
Claim 10
Independent Claim
209 words
A method for comparing sequential hardware designs, comprising the steps of: providing a first sequential hardware design; providing a second sequential hardware design compatible to the first hardware design, having the same number of inputs and the same number of outputs; comparing the first sequential hardware design to the second sequential hardware design as a design pair to provide a representation of the total sequential behavior of the design pair; determining the equivalent-state-pair set of state pairs in the design pair that, for any sequence of inputs to the design pair, will result in the outputs of the first and second sequential hardware design being equivalent for all state pairs reached by the set of inputs within said sequence; if the equivalent-state-pair set is not empty, determine as the alignable-pairs set, the set of state pairs that can be transformed into the equivalent-state-pair set in less than a predetermined number of cycles; determine if the state pairs in the alignable-pair set is equal to the set of all state pairs for the design pair; and declare the first and second ..sequential hardware designs in the design pair equivalent if the state pairs in the alignable-pairs set is equal to the set of all state pairs for the design pair.
Claim 11
Independent Claim
209 words
A method for comparing sequential hardware designs, comprising the steps of: providing a first sequential hardware design; providing a second sequential hardware design compatible to the first hardware design, having the same number of inputs and the same number of outputs; comparing the first sequential hardware design to the second sequential hardware design as a design pair to provide a representation of the total sequential behavior of the design pair; determining the equivalent-state-pair set of state pairs in the design pair that, for any sequence of inputs to the design pair, will result in the outputs of the first and second sequential hardware design being equivalent for all state pairs reached by the set of inputs within said sequence; if the equivalent-state-pair set is not empty, determine as the alignable-pairs set, the set of state pairs that can be transformed into the equivalent-state-pair set in less than a predetermined number of cycles; determine if the state pairs in the alignable-pair set is equal to the set of all state pairs for the design pair; and declare the first and second ..sequential hardware designs in the design pair equivalent if the state pairs in the alignable-pairs set is equal to the set of all state pairs for the design pair.
Claim 12
Dependent Claim
16 words
The method of claim 9, wherein the first and second sequential hardware designs are the same.
Claim 13
Dependent Claim
45 words
The method of claim 9, and further comprising declaring that one of the first and second sequential hardware designs in the design pair is not essentially resemble if any of the state pairs in the design pair are not in the set of alignable pairs.
Claim 14
Dependent Claim
30 words
The method of claim 9, and further comprising the step of determining a sequence of inputs that will transform all state pairs in the design pair into the equivalent-state-pair set.
Claim 15
Dependent Claim
32 words
The method of claim 9, and further comprising providing a representation of the total sequential behavior of the first and second sequential hardware designs, which are utilized in the step of comparing.
Claim 16
Dependent Claim
38 words
The method of claim 9 wherein the step of comparing comprises: determining the transition relationship of the design pair; and determining the output function of each of the first and second sequential hardware designs in the design pair.
Claim 17
Dependent Claim
25 words
The method of claim 14 wherein the step of determining the transition relationship is operable to represent the transition relationship as a binary decision diagram.
References Cited (Backward Citations)
USPTO Annuity & Maintenance Windows
| Annuity Stage | Window Opens | Payment Deadline | Surcharge Period Until | Estimated Fee | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 Years (Year 4) | 1997-07-18 | 1998-01-17 | 1998-07-19 | $2000.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 7.5 Years (Year 8) | 2001-07-18 | 2002-01-17 | 2002-07-19 | $3760.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 11.5 Years (Year 12) | 2005-07-18 | 2006-01-17 | 2006-07-19 | $7700.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |