Ranking verification results for root cause analysis

• US 9,032,339 B2
• Filed: 03/06/2013
• Issued: 05/12/2015
• Est. Priority Date: 03/06/2013
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Synopsys Incorporated
• Original Assignee: Synopsys Incorporated
• Inventors: De, Kaushik, Harer, Kevin M., Mukherjee, Rajarshi, Narwade, Mahantesh
• Primary Examiner(s): NGUYEN, NHA T
• Application Number:
  US13/786,599
• Publication Number:
  US 20140258954A1
• Time in Patent Office: 797 Days
• Field of Search: 716 50- 56, 716106-115, 716/136
• US Class Current: 716/52
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 30/3323 using formal methods, e.g. equivalence checking or property checking

Abstract

Verification-result ranking techniques for root cause analysis are disclosed using violation report analysis and violation weighting. Violation reports are unwieldy and result from a variety of design and process checks. The check coverage can overlap, causing a specific violation to trigger multiple reported violations. High turn around times for violation report analysis increase the risk that selective violation analysis will inadvertently suppress real design bugs. This reduces the odds that static checker reports alone will meet design sign-off criteria. Determining relationships among a plurality of violations for a design permits clustering violations into hot spots. Identification of primary and subsequent contributors to the plurality of violations is based on the relationships among violations. The hot spot with the highest weight is identified, and then subsequent violations are identified to maximize violation coverage. The result is greater efficiency of design violation identification and resolution.

Claims

1. A computer-implemented method for design analysis comprising:

determining, based on a report on violations for a design using one or more processors, a relationship between a plurality of the violations for the design where the relationship includes a proximity between the plurality of violations;

calculating violation weights and sorting the violations based on the violation weights;

identifying a primary contributor to the plurality of the violations based on the relationship between the plurality of violations, where the primary contributor is related to an object within the design and where the identifying a primary contributor is based on a hot spot analysis for the design;

annotating the design with violation-check tuples and where the determining the relationship between the plurality of the violations is based on the violation-check tuples; and

wherein a weight, from the violation weights, is assigned to a design object based on the number of violations associated with the design object within the design and where the hot spot is identified based on the weight.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein the design includes information on a specification.

3. The method of claim 2 wherein the specification includes intent on power and/or timing.

4. The method of claim 3 wherein the specification includes one or more of UPF or SDC.

5. The method of claim 1 wherein the primary contributor is also related to an attribute within the design.

6. The method of claim 5 wherein the primary contributor is based on a weighting of the object within the design.

7. The method of claim 1 wherein the primary contributor is based on a frequency of violations relating to the object within the design.

8. The method of claim 1 further comprising determining a root cause for the plurality of violations.

9. The method of claim 1 further comprising evaluating the design with a static checker.

10. The method of claim 9 wherein the static checker identifies at least some of the violations for the report.

11. The method of claim 1 wherein the violations are from one or more static verification tools.

12. The method of claim 1 further comprising presenting the plurality of violations based on the relationship.

13. The method of claim 1 wherein the identifying the primary contributor is based on data mining.

14. The method of claim 1 further comprising determining weights for aspects of the violations.

15. The method of claim 14 wherein the weights are for debug fields.

16. The method of claim 14 wherein the violation weights are based on the weights for the aspects of the violations.

17. The method of claim 14 wherein the primary contributor is related to an object or an attribute within the design and the sorting of the violations aids in identifying the primary contributor, wherein the primary contributor is further based on a frequency of violations relating to the object or the attribute within the design.

18. The method of claim 14 wherein the violation weights are based on a number of violations associated with an object in the design.

19. The method of claim 14 wherein the violation weights are based on a number of violations associated with an attribute in the design.

20. A computer system for design analysis comprising:

a memory which stores instructions;

one or more processors coupled to the memory wherein the one or more processors are configured to;

determine, based on a report on violations for a design, a relationship between a plurality of the violations for the design where the relationship includes a proximity between the plurality of violations;

calculate violation weights and sorting the violations based on the violation weights;

identify a primary contributor to the plurality of the violations based on the relationship between the plurality of violations, where the primary contributor is related to an object within the design and where the identifying a primary contributor is based on a hot spot analysis for the design;

annotate the design with violation-check tuples and where determination of the relationship between the plurality of the violations is based on the violation-check tuples; and

wherein a weight, from the violation weights, is assigned to a design object based on the number of violations associated with the design object within the design and where the hot spot is identified based on the weight.

21. The system of claim 20 wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine a root cause for the plurality of violations.

22. The system of claim 20 wherein the one or more processors are further configured to present the plurality of violations based on the relationship.

23. The system of claim 20 wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine violation weights for aspects of the violations.

24. The system of claim 23 wherein the violation weights are based on a context factor.

25. A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium for design analysis comprising:

code for determining, based on a report on violations for a design, a relationship between a plurality of the violations for the design where the relationship includes a proximity between the plurality of violations;

code for calculating violation weights and sorting the violations based on the violation weights;

code for identifying a primary contributor to the plurality of the violations based on the relationship between the plurality of violations, where the primary contributor is related to an object within the design and where the identifying a primary contributor is based on a hot spot analysis for the design;

code for annotating the design with violation-check tuples and where the determining the relationship between the plurality of the violations is based on the violation-check tuples; and

wherein a weight, from the violation weights, is assigned to a design object based on the number of violations associated with the design object within the design and where the hot spot is identified based on the weight.

26. The computer program product of claim 25 further comprising code for determining a root cause for the plurality of violations.

27. The computer program product of claim 25 further comprising code for presenting the plurality of violations based on the relationship.

28. The computer program product of claim 25 further comprising code for determining violation weights for aspects of the violations.

29. The computer program product of claim 28 wherein the violation weights are based on a context factor.

30. The computer program product of claim 25 wherein the proximity between the plurality of violations includes a physical or logical proximity.