Abstract: A method of processing natural language assertions (NLAs) can include identifying an NLA and then translating that NLA into a verification language assertion (VLA) using a natural language parser (NLP) and synthesis techniques. This VLA can be translated into an interpreted NLA (NLA*) using a VLA parser and pattern matching techniques. At this point, the process can allow user review of the NLA* and the NLA. When the user determines that the NLA* and the NLA are the same or have insignificant difference, then verification can be performed using the VLA. The results of the verification can then be back annotated on the NLA. In one fully-automatic embodiment, in addition to comparing the NLA and the NLA*, the VLA and a VLA* (generated from the NLA*) can be compared, thereby providing yet another test of accuracy for the user during verification.

Abstract: Improving on the waveform viewing technology can advantageously address the industry's need for speedup and capacity of existing solution. As described herein, making data manipulation local and bounded can facilitate tremendous speedup. The waveform viewer can process data on-demand where the user explicitly specifies signals and a desired window (i.e. range). Operations including, but not limited to, zoom, pan, scan, etc. on the waveform viewer can be sent to the waveform servers in the form of a query containing the visualization parameters (e.g. number of pixels), which in turn compute bitmaps (or other waveform images) that are sent back to be displayed.

Abstract: A method of processing natural language assertions (NLAs) can include identifying an NLA and then translating that NLA into a verification language assertion (VLA) using a natural language parser (NLP) and synthesis techniques. This VLA can be translated into an interpreted NLA (NLA*) using a VLA parser and pattern matching techniques. At this point, the process can allow user review of the NLA* and the NLA. When the user determines that the NLA* and the NLA are the same or have insignificant difference, then verification can be performed using the VLA. The results of the verification can then be back annotated on the NLA. In one fully-automatic embodiment, in addition to comparing the NLA and the NLA*, the VLA and a VLA* (generated from the NLA*) can be compared, thereby providing yet another test of accuracy for the user during verification.

Abstract: Names of signals are propagated through a circuit design inside tuples, with each tuple including at least a signal name and a sequential depth. A tuple being propagated is added to a list of zero or more tuples currently identified with a circuit element, unless a tuple of the same signal name is already present in the list. If already present in the list, then propagation of that tuple is stopped. Propagation of tuples may also be stopped depending on user-defined limits, e.g. on sequential depth. Tuple propagation may be used, depending on the embodiment, to identify features of interest in the circuit design, e.g. (a) a point of convergence of differently clocked signals, (b) location of gray coders, and (c) location of synchronizers, by appropriate identification of circuit elements from which tuple propagation is to start, and by appropriate checks on lists of tuples that result from tuple propagation.