Forced simulation

Abstract

Component reuse techniques have been a recent focus of research because they are seen as the next-generation techniques to handle increasing system complexities. However, there are several unresolved issues to be addressed and prominent among them is the issue of component matching. As the number of reusable components in a component database grows, the task of manually matching a component to the user requirements becomes infeasible. Automating this matching can help in rapid system prototyping, improving quality and reducing cost. In addition, if the matching algorithm is sound, this approach can also reduce precious validation effort.In this article, we propose an algorithm for automatic matching of a design function to a device from a component database. The distinguishing feature of the algorithm is that when successful, it generates an interface that can automatically adapt the device to behave as the function. The algorithm is based on a new simulation relation called forced simulation that is shown to be a necessary and sufficient condition for component matching to be possible for a given pair of function and device. We demonstrate the application of the algorithm by reusing on some programmable components of the Intel family.

Specification Enforcing Refinement for Convertibility Verification

“…The last row of the table compares the existing solutions to the solution proposed in this paper. We extend the capability of the controller to allow, not only disabling actions, but also forcing actions [13]. Forcing actions are introduced to solve specific needs of the problem domain, namely the need for state based hiding, which is not possible using conventional disabling-only controllers.…”

“…Finally, we provide an algorithm to synthesize the converter given such a relation. Our method for protocol conversion is based on DES supervisory control [12] and forced simulation [13]. While we have motivated the proposed method using the case of two protocols, the proposed approach generalizes straightforwardly to an arbitrary number of protocols.…”

Formal verification of component-based designs

“…A slightly different, but related, issue is that of component matching described by Roop et al [26]. The designer has a specification stating what functionality is needed at a certain place in the design.…”

“…The component may be able to do more than is required by the specification, but the specification must be a subset of what the component is able to perform. The proposed algorithm is based on the forced simulation relation [26], possibly augmented with a particular timing feature [27]. If the component is able to implement the desired behaviour, it is possible to automatically obtain a driver process which does the actual adaptation of the component.…”

Refinement Laws for Verifying Library Subroutine Adaptation

“…Similarly, Spitznagel and Garlan use the FSP process algebra to model changes to interface protocols [19]. Roop et al use Labelled Transition Systems as the formal basis for their algorithm for adapting embedded systems components [17]. Similarly, Bracciali et al use the π-calculus to describe component adaptors [3].…”