Test Strategy:
With a specific end goal to test the counter outline, we have chosen to test just a predetermined number of cases and test to see whether the configuration a) tallies accurately, and b) sends the yield T high at the right times. To do this, we will pick two or three states to test the numbering arrangement on, focus the normal yield utilizing the state outline, and contrast this with the yield from a ModelSim testbench. Test and Verification: In the first place we will test to check that the counter will leave the INIT state after 1 clock cycle, hold the EW state the length of P and C are low, and tally to 6-7 cycles when either one goes high.. …show more content…
Property Formalization
The model checker SMV utilizes the fanning time worldly rationale CTL (Computation .Tree Logic) for the detail of properties. A prologue to this rationale can be found in [4]; here we simply give a couple of illustrations. We accept that φ, ψ are a propositional expression over the variables that characterize the framework's state space. At that point every now and again utilized
CTL colloquialisms are:
• AGφ is genuine, iff φ holds invariantly for all executions of the framework. Correspondingly, EGφ holds, iff there is one execution where φ is invariantly genuine. For instance, we will expect that our movement light has an execution, where all signs are perpetually changed to red: This circumstance happens in evening mode, when no auto ever touches base on either street. On the other hand, this won't be the situation for all executions. Along these lines, we expect AG(ca.ctrl = Red) to be false, yet EG(ca.ctrl = Red) to be valid for our framework. (nla and !(ctrl = GreenX and dir = DirA) - > next(nla) = 1) and (nlb and !(ctrl = GreenX and dir = DirB) - > next(nlb) = 1) and next(d) > 0 and next(d) < 256 next(m) = m and next(lf) = 0 and next(sf) = 0 and • AFφ is genuine, when in all executions after a limited number of moves a state is come to where φ is valid. Also, EFφ implies that this is valid for no less than one execution. The equations AX φ and EX φ express the more grounded property that framework states where φ hold must be came to after precisely one move. Invariants and reachability can be consolidated. For instance, AGAFφ states that φ is genuine unendingly frequently. • AG(φ ⇒ AFψ) is a saying for reactivity properties. It implies that at whatever point φ holds in a framework's execution, after a limited number of moves a state will be come to where ψ holds. Once more, varieties of this property can be framed by composing EG and EF. A properties' portion we are occupied with just hold when the sytem's surroundings— the auto sensors and disappointment finders—carries on certainly. Presumptions on the environment,