Generalized parity-check matrices for SEC-DED codes with fixed parity

Gherman, Valentin; Evain, Samuel; Seymour, Nathaniel; Bonhomme, Yannick

doi:10.1109/iolts.2011.5993842

Cited by 21 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the proposed SEC codes are compared with those of an SEC Hamming code. For SEC-DED, the proposed codes are compared with the optimized SEC-DED codes recently proposed in [6]. In all cases, the decoders only correct errors in the data bits.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The number of ones in the parity check matrix is related to the number of XOR gates needed to generate and check the parity check bits. Therefore, it can be used as a first estimate of the complexity of the encoders and decoders [6]. The values for the different codes and block sizes are provided in Table II.…”

Section: Single Error Correction Codesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the Hamming codes, columns have been reordered to ensure that the ones with the lowest weights are used for the data bits. The SEC-DED codes with the lowest number of ones are those presented in [6], and therefore they will be used as the reference for comparison in the following. It is important to note that for the decoder, the number of ones gives only a rough idea of the complexity as the logic to identify the syndrome values that is independent of the number of ones is the most complex block.…”

Section: Single Error Correction Codesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hamming codes can also be extended with a parity bit to obtain a SEC-DED code. More sophisticated SEC-DED codes have also been proposed as, for example, the ones described in [4], [6], and [7]. In those cases, the number of redundant bits is kept to the lowest achievable value, and the different codes optimize the area and delay of the encoder and decoder or the detection of triple errors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The proposed scheme can be used to design codes for any data block size using a simple script. To illustrate the benefits of the method, the derived SEC codes are compared to Hamming SEC codes and the proposed SEC-DED codes with the optimized SEC-DED codes presented in [6]. The results show that they achieve a significantly lower delay and also a lower area for the encoder and the decoder.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A Method to Construct Low Delay Single Error Correction Codes for Protecting Data Bits Only

Reviriego

Pontarelli

Maestro

et al. 2013

IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Error correction codes (ECCs) have been used for decades to protect memories from soft errors. Single error correction (SEC) codes that can correct 1-bit error per word are a common option for memory protection. In some cases, SEC codes are extended to also provide double error detection and are known as SEC-DED codes. As technology scales, soft errors on registers also became a concern and, therefore, SEC codes are used to protect registers. The use of an ECC impacts the circuit design in terms of both delay and area. Traditional SEC or SEC-DED codes developed for memories have focused on minimizing the number of redundant bits added by the code. This is important in a memory as those bits are added to each word in the memory. However, for registers used in circuits, minimizing the delay or area introduced by the ECC can be more important. In this paper, a method to construct low delay SEC or SEC-DED codes that correct errors only on the data bits is proposed. The method is evaluated for several data block sizes, showing that the new codes offer significant delay reductions when compared with traditional SEC or SEC-DED codes. The results for the area of the encoder and decoder also show substantial savings compared to existing codes.Index Terms-Double error detection, error correction codes (ECCs), single error correction (SEC), soft errors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Single Error Correction Codesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Single Error Correction Codesmentioning

confidence: 99%