Advertisement

High-Level Debugging and Exploration

  • Frank RoginEmail author
  • Rolf Drechsler
Chapter
  • 522 Downloads

Abstract

Up to now, the designer has checked code quality and particular functional correctness aspects of the system model using static analysis. Now, the first executable version of the model can be compiled and simulated. This version may only comprise a subsystem of the final system. In place of static tests dynamic analysis in terms of observation techniques support the designer in debugging the simulatable design description. If the simulation produces an erroneous outcome the simulation state is observed at interesting moments in time. Therefore, a debugging and exploration approach at a higher abstraction level is proposed (see Figure 4.1).

Keywords

User Layer Thread Process Debug Process Dynamic Slice SystemC Simulation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Zel05.
    A. Zeller. WHY PROGRAMS FAIL - A Guide to Systematic Debugging. Morgan Kaufmann, 2005.Google Scholar
  2. GDB.
    R. Stallman, R. Pesch, St. Shebs, et al. Debugging with GDB. Free Software Foundation, Inc., [Online], http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb, accessed July 2008.
  3. Wei84.
    M. Weiser. Program slicing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 10(4):352–357, 1984.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. KL88.
    B. Korel and J. Laski. Dynamic program slicing. Information Processing Letters, 29(3):155–163, 1988.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ARM.
    ARM Ltd. RealView Development Suite Homepage. [Online], http://www.arm.com accessed October 2008.
  6. CoWare.
    CoWare Inc. Platform Architect Homepage. [Online], http://www.coware.com accessed July 2008.
  7. WD+05.
    A. Wieferink, M. Doerper, T. Kogel, G. Braun, A. Nohl, R. Leupers, G. Ascheid, and H. Meyr. A System Level Processor/Communication Co-Exploration Methodology for Multi-Processor System-on-Chip Platforms. In IEE Proceedings: Computers & Digital Techniques, 152(1):3–11, 2005.Google Scholar
  8. CRAB01.
    L. Charest, M. Reid, E. Aboulhamid, and G. Bois. A Methodology for Interfacing Open Source SystemC with a Third party Software. In Design, Automation and Test in Europe, pp. 16–20, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. GHJV95.
    E. Gamma, R. Helm, R. Johnson, and J. Vlissides. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. GDLA03.
    D. Große, R. Drechsler, L. Linhard, and G. Angst. Efficient Automatic Visualization of SystemC Designs. In Forum on specification and Design Languages, pp. 646–657, 2003.Google Scholar
  11. EAH05.
    F. Doucet, S. Shukla, and R. Gupta. Introspection in System-Level Language Frameworks: Meta-Level vs. Integrated. In Design, Automation, and Test in Europe, pp. 382–387, 2003.Google Scholar
  12. BP+05.
    D. Berner, H. Patel, D. Mathaikutty, J.-P. Talpin, and S. Shukla. System-CXML: An Extensible SystemC Front End Using XML. In Forum on Specification and Design Languages, pp. 405–408, 2005.Google Scholar
  13. MMM05a.
    M. Moy, F. Maraninchi, and L. Maillet-Contoz. LusSy: A Toolbox for the Analysis of Systems-on-a-Chip at the Transactional Level. In International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design, pp. 26–35, 2005.Google Scholar
  14. MMM05b.
    M. Moy, F. Maraninchi, and L. Maillet-Contoz. PINAPA: An Extraction Tool for SystemC Descriptions of Systems-on-a-Chip. In ACM International Conference on Embedded Software, pp. 317–324, 2005.Google Scholar
  15. KSF99.
    D. Kranzlmüller, N. Stankovic, and J. Volkert. Debugging Parallel Programs with Visual Patterns. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, pp. 180–181, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. ABS03.
    G. Agosta, F. Bruschi, and D. Sciuto. Static analysis of transaction-level models. In Conference on Design Automation, pp. 448–453, 2003.Google Scholar
  17. CF+93.
    J. Cuny, G. Forman, A. Hough, J. Kundu, C. Lin, L. Snyder, and D. Stemple. The Ariadne Debugger: Scalable Application of Event-Based Abstraction. In Workshop on Parallel & Distributed Debugging, pp. 85–95, 1993.Google Scholar
  18. DE88.
    M. Ducassé and A.-M. Emde. A Review of Automated Debugging Systems: Knowledge, Strategies and Techniques. In International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 162–171, 1988.Google Scholar
  19. KP99.
    B.W. Kernighan and R. Pike. The Practice of Programming. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  20. DSG03.
    R. Drechsler and D. Große. Reachability Analysis for Formal Verification of SystemC. In Euromicro Symposium on Digital System Design, pp. 337–340, 2002.Google Scholar
  21. OSCI.
    OSCI. SystemC home page. [Online], http://www.systemc.org accessed July 2008.
  22. CDT.
    Eclipse CDT Project Homepage. [Online], http://www.eclipse.org/cdt accessed September 2008.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institutsteil EntwurfsautomatisierungFraunhofer - Institut für Integrierte SchaltungenDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Universität Bremen AG RechnerarchitekturBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations