Home

Mentor announces the Questa X-Value Verification Solution

Test And Verification Services Blog - Mon, 25/05/2015 - 11:25

Mentor Graphics announces availability of a new solution for X-value verification in register transfer level (RTL) and gate level designs.

X-values are symbols that represent unknown voltage levels of signals in digital IC.

Read more.

The post Mentor announces the Questa X-Value Verification Solution appeared first on TVS.

Categories: Software Testing

Make The Dirt Pay

James Thomas' blog - Fri, 22/05/2015 - 14:14
Sometimes, perhaps when you're under time pressure and on a mission and in a part of the product you're not familiar with, you bump into issue after issue after issue trying to get to the thing you just have to get tested right now.

Maybe you looked at the doc, but really you only skimmed it because your boss was on your back, a pain in the neck, giving you a headache and tapping his wrist.

Maybe you noticed there was a warning in the log file, but it looked a bit internal and you dismissed it because some output was produced and the product manager is standing in the doorway editing her MS Project plan and tutting heavily.

Maybe you hopefully copied the conventions of other commands in the config file, or just plain guessed at the syntax for the bits you added, because the end of the sprint is tomorrow and the Scrum Master's definition of done is all about the done and less about the definition.

Maybe you asked somebody else, an expert, who had just the knowledge you need, but because you were in a hurry and they're also overloaded, you ended up with a shallow understanding and now their words of wisdom are just wisps of what-the? So you're reduced to feverishly trying random inputs hoping to defeat Probability and somehow magic up the answer the project wants even though by now even if you miraculously happened upon it you probably wouldn't be able to tell.

... Deep breath ...

Congratulations! You have arrived at a rare and privileged position: you are now your user.

Users generally don't know your product inside out. Frankly, most users wouldn't use your product at all if they could get what they need with less effort, hassle, expense or whatever resource is most important to them.

Many users don't pay attention to doc, or warning flags or the messages in the warnings that they don't understand or take time to learn how to do the stuff they don't need often. They just want the result. And they usually need it now, or earlier.

You are seeing the dirt that your users see, for the kinds of reasons your users see it. And that dirt is pay dirt. So don't just sigh and consign that nightmare to the brain bin when you get to the end of your task. Try to make the most of it by using your experiences to help to find ways to make the product better, and ensure that your product continues to be the one that gives your users their result in a timely fashion at the right cost for them.
Image: https://flic.kr/p/3X8i7s
Categories: Software Testing

Cadence Introduces Indago Debug Platform

Test And Verification Services Blog - Fri, 22/05/2015 - 06:25

The Cadence Indago Debug Platform is a new debugging solution which reduces the time to identify bugs in a design by up to 50 percent compared to traditional signal- or transaction-level debug methods.

The Indago platform and associated debugging apps are currently available for early adopters.

Read more.

The post Cadence Introduces Indago Debug Platform appeared first on TVS.

Categories: Software Testing

Mike Bartley (CEO and Founder, TVS) to present at Embedded Safety and Security Summit 2015 on “Advanced Verification techniques for DO-254”

Test And Verification Services Blog - Thu, 21/05/2015 - 11:29

Hardware verification has made many advances in recent years: constrained random testing, functional and code coverage, assertion-based verification, metrics-driven verification, formal verification, requirements-based verification, and many more.

As the complexity of FPGA designs used in avionics increases then the need to move away from directed testing to these more advanced techniques becomes more important. However, how do we move to such techniques and still demonstrate compliance to avionics development standards (such as DO254)?

In this workshop which is going to be held on 17 June at Bangalore, T&VS provides an overview of the advanced verification techniques which T&VS have used extensively for a number of years both in ASIC and FPGA development. More importantly, T&VS will show how these techniques can be used in a DO254 compliance flow.

Read more.

The post Mike Bartley (CEO and Founder, TVS) to present at Embedded Safety and Security Summit 2015 on “Advanced Verification techniques for DO-254” appeared first on TVS.

Categories: Software Testing

The SoC Mixed-Signal Verification Challenge

Test And Verification Services Blog - Thu, 21/05/2015 - 08:07

Industry estimates suggest that more than 60% of SoC design re-spins at 45nm and below are due to mixed-signal errors.

This paper by Cadence discusses co-simulation and the wide range of approaches available, including a metric driven approach.

Read more.

The post The SoC Mixed-Signal Verification Challenge appeared first on TVS.

Categories: Software Testing

New release of asureSIGN to support Requirements Management and Signoff

Test And Verification Services Blog - Wed, 20/05/2015 - 14:00

TVS is pleased to announce that the May release of asureSIGN is now available with 3 major new features: a Doors interface via a ReqIF interface, a history feature (to track changes in requirements, test plans, etc.) and improved multi-user support.

asureSIGN is a flexible tool which can be used for the following:

  • Requirements Management: Top level Requirements are captured, refined into sub features and atomic level features.
  • Verification management: High level Test plans are captured and linked to the atomic level features outlined above. The test plan can be refined to atomic level test plans. Hence, requirements are mapped to test plans and vice-versa. Test results are captured during the project allowing users to track test plan progress and hence requirements sign-off.
  • Standards compliance: Proof of implementation of requirements through test results as required by the standards or guidelines which are mandatory for industries such as automotive, avionics, defence, rail, nuclear, industrial, etc.

Future 2015 releases will include better integration with Simulink and Jira; improved analysis of the impact of proposed changes; as well as Qualification Kit for avionics, automotive, etc.

You can request your evaluation by emailing mike@testandverification.com

Read more.

The post New release of asureSIGN to support Requirements Management and Signoff appeared first on TVS.

Categories: Software Testing

Continuous Delivery and DevOps: Moving from Staged to Pervasive testing

Test And Verification Services Blog - Wed, 20/05/2015 - 08:34

Continuous delivery of software is invaluable in enabling companies to respond more quickly to changing markets. But the thought of continuous delivery is often scary for testers who are more familiar with long staged test cycles. So how do you move from yearly releases to weekly releases and what impact does this have on the way you test your service?

At our Intelligent Testing conference in Bristol on 18th June, Rob Lambert, Engineering Manager at New Voice Media, serial blogger and author of a number of testing books and articles, will be talking about how they managed to do this at NVM very successfully. They needed to think differently – could you?

If you want to find out more about their test strategy, the core principles they adopted and the testing approaches they put in place join us on the 18th June. As well as Rob’s keynote presentation, there are six other great talks on a variety of testing topics.

Attending the conference is free but places are limited so we recommend early registration.

Find out more about the conference and registration here.

The post Continuous Delivery and DevOps: Moving from Staged to Pervasive testing appeared first on TVS.

Categories: Software Testing

Visit Synopsys @ Formal Verification Conference 2015

Test And Verification Services Blog - Wed, 20/05/2015 - 08:22

Synopsys will discuss how the practical challenges of design bring-up, rapid verification of iterative design refinement, root cause analysis and verification sign-off can be addressed with transactional equivalence, sequential equivalence and formal debug techniques.

Read more.

The post Visit Synopsys @ Formal Verification Conference 2015 appeared first on TVS.

Categories: Software Testing

Slides and Recordings Available for DVClub Bangalore – 9 April 2015

Test And Verification Services Blog - Wed, 20/05/2015 - 07:48

If you would like to review the slides and recordings of the presentations, they are now available on the TVS Website.

The Bangalore edition of the next DVClub is scheduled for mid-June. The theme will be ‘SoC Verification Challenges’. Why not register your interest and be one of the first to secure your place!

Do you have an SoC Verification story to tell and would like to share it at the next DVClub?

Contact Shyam.R for more information on how you can participate.

The post Slides and Recordings Available for DVClub Bangalore – 9 April 2015 appeared first on TVS.

Categories: Software Testing

GraphixAsset use TVS to test their new Medical Application

Test And Verification Services Blog - Wed, 20/05/2015 - 07:19
PRESS RELEASE

Bristol, UK, 20th   May 2015TVS, a leader in software test and hardware verification solutions, today announced that it had executed a functional and security testing strategy for the new electronic Medical Administration Record (eMAR) system being developed by GraphixAsset, a UK-based software company building iPhone and Android apps, designing and building web applications, computer graphics, point of sale and motion graphics business.

TVS first helped GraphixAsset to clarify the requirements so that a thorough functional and security test plan could be developed which would support the healthcare compliances to provide quality software. The plan was both aggressive to allow GraphixAsset to hit their client timescales and iterative to allow GraphixAsset to progressively fix issues. After each iteration TVS supplied a clear list of issues for GraphixAsset to fix and TVS started the next iteration once they were fixed. At the end of three iterations eMAR was deemed of sufficient quality and TVS delivered a test report as evidence of that.

Chris Gledhill, CEO of GraphixAsset, commented “It was a pleasure working with TVS. They offered a very cost effective solution through test engineers in India but provided a contact point in the UK if we needed management support. The expertise and independence they were provided has improved our product quality beyond my expectation.”

Mike Bartley, CEO of TVS, said “I am proud of the outcome with GraphixAsset. We were able to add a lot of value to eMAR through a cost effective solution thus offering huge ROI. It really demonstrates the value of our service and the quality of our engineers.”

Chris Gledhill, CEO of GraphixAsset, added “Two of the key advantages we found from TVS is their flexibility and communication. We often needed to adjust timescales and TVS always found a way to accommodate that. And despite the fact the test engineers were based in India, we were had regular and clear communication. I would not hesitate to recommend them to other software developers.”

Further information on TVS’s products and services is available at www.testandverification.com.

About TVS

TVS(Test and Verification Solutions Ltd) provides expertise to help companies ensure their hardware and software based products are reliable, safe and secure. Such organisations use TVS to verify their hardware and software products, employ industry best practice and manage peaks in development and testing programmes. TVS’ embedded software testing services includes onsite/offshore testing support including assistance with safety certification and security testing. TVS’ hardware verification services include onsite/offshore verification support and training in advanced verification methodologies. TVS also offers Verification IPs, its own Verification (EDA) signoff tool and a CPU verification tool asureISG.

About GraphixAsset

GraphixAsset is a UK-based software company building iPhone and Android apps, designing and building web applications, computer graphics, point of sale and motion graphics business.

TVS Company Contact
  • Dr. Mike Bartley – TVS
  • Tel: +44 7796 307958
  • mike@testandverification.com
Additional Information


 

The post GraphixAsset use TVS to test their new Medical Application appeared first on TVS.

Categories: Software Testing

A SystemC-based UVM Verification infrastructure

Test And Verification Services Blog - Wed, 20/05/2015 - 06:38

TVS recently completed a SystemC-based Universal Verification Methodology (UVM) project for Blu Wireless Technology, a UK-based company that develops silicon-proven mmWave wireless baseband IP for advanced WiGig applications.

Blu Wireless follows a SystemC-based design flow. Following an initial specification period, it was quickly agreed that the best approach would be to deploy a SystemC test bench that would be UVM-compliant with a TLM-2.0 interface.

This EDN network blog outlines the infrastructure that was developed and the deployment of that infrastructure to enact the constraint-based random verification.

Read more.

The post A SystemC-based UVM Verification infrastructure appeared first on TVS.

Categories: Software Testing

Formal Coverage for Formal and Simulation Audiences

Test And Verification Services Blog - Wed, 20/05/2015 - 06:29

Stefan Staber of Cadence will discuss “Formal Coverage for Formal and Simulation Audiences” at the TVS Formal Verification conference on Thursday May 21st.

Stefan is a Principal Product Engineer in the Formal R&D business unit at Cadence Design Systems focusing on apps and solutions around formal technologies.

Hear the above talk and 8 other speakers at the free one day Formal Verification conference held at Reading, UK on Thursday, 21 May and you have the option to attend in person or via remote access.

Attendees will gain from the event whether they are just trying to learn how to apply formal verification or expert users.

Places are limited and this event often sells out so we recommend early registration.

Speaker and registration details can be found here.

The post Formal Coverage for Formal and Simulation Audiences appeared first on TVS.

Categories: Software Testing

Fifty Quick Ideas To Improve Your Tests now available

Gojko Adzic's blog - Tue, 19/05/2015 - 09:00

My new book, Fifty Quick Ideas to Improve Your Tests, is now available on Amazon. Grab it at 50% discount before Friday:

This book is for cross-functional teams working in an iterative delivery environment, planning with user stories and testing frequently changing software under tough time pressure. This book will help you test your software better, easier and faster. Many of these ideas also help teams engage their business stakeholders better in defining key expectations and improve the quality of their software products.

For more info, check out FiftyQuickIdeas.com

Categories: Agile, Software Testing

Alternative Formal techniques to increase Verification productivity

Test And Verification Services Blog - Mon, 18/05/2015 - 06:17

Formal verification techniques such as property checking and formal applications have become an important part of today’s verification methodology. Designers play an increasing role in verification, both because of the additional resource and, also, because of the cost effectiveness of finding bugs earlier in the design flow.

As we look for greater increases in productivity, we need to look for optimal formal techniques to address the practical challenges of the entire design and verification team.

This presentation considers how the practical challenges of design bring-up, rapid verification of iterative design refinement, root cause analysis and verification sign-off can be addressed with transactional equivalence checking, sequential equivalence checking and formal debug techniques.

  • Transactional equivalence checking helps find bugs for quick design bring-up, verifies iterative design changes and provides a technique for verification sign-off.
  • Sequential equivalence checking can verify iterative manual RTL edits such as clock gating, data gating, register retiming, and DFT insertion.
  • Formal techniques can augment root cause analysis in debug.

Hear the above talk by Doug Fisher, Senior Staff Application Consultant at Synopsys, and 8 other speakers at the free one day Formal Verification conference held at Reading, UK on Thursday, 21 May and you have the option to attend in person or via remote access. Attendees will gain from the event whether they are just trying to learn how to apply formal verification or expert users.

Places are limited and this event often sells out so we recommend early registration.

Speaker and registration details can be found here.

The post Alternative Formal techniques to increase Verification productivity appeared first on TVS.

Categories: Software Testing

Extending the Formal based Ecosystem – Refreshing the parts other formal tools can’t reach

Test And Verification Services Blog - Fri, 15/05/2015 - 06:35

Formal-based solutions have proven invaluable for tough verification problems, where the exhaustive nature of the formal approach may be combined with targeted apps. However, the apps that we have seen so far pale in comparison with the possibilities afforded by this technology.

Formal techniques have the potential to revolutionize electronic verification and move beyond this space to other areas. However, to realize this potential, more thinking about the way we apply formal solutions is required. On the 21st May, OneSpin will make an announcement, which it believes will start to address this gap. Come along to this presentation to hear more about this interesting development.

  • We need to address the gap between formal actual and formal potential.
  • Requires some different thinking about formal technology delivery
  • Announcement on May 21st will explain more

Hear the above talk by Raik Brinkmann, a co-founder of OneSpin Solutions, and 8 other speakers at the free one day Formal Verification conference held at Reading, UK on Thursday, 21 May and you have the option to attend in person or via remote access. Attendees will gain from the event whether they are just trying to learn how to apply formal verification or expert users.

Places are limited and this event often sells out so we recommend early registration.

Speaker and registration details can be found here.

The post Extending the Formal based Ecosystem – Refreshing the parts other formal tools can’t reach appeared first on TVS.

Categories: Software Testing

It’s all in the Model : Verifying Complex Arbitration Schemes using Formal

Test And Verification Services Blog - Thu, 14/05/2015 - 06:42

The design of multi-transactional systems is a key to optimize performance where several masters arbitrate over a shared resource. The arbitration schemes are carefully designed to avoid hazards, race conditions, starvation and deadlocks.

Arbitration verification is a challenge when policies are complex and the number of requestors is large. We present an abstract formal model within 80 lines of modelling code that uses a single assertion to exhaustively verify a range of arbiters within Imagination. We provide a reusable model that provides one of the highest levels of assurance and proves correctness in seconds for some arbiters with 256 requestors.

Hear the above talk by Iain Singleton, Engineer Advanced Verification Methodology Group at Imagination Technologies, and 8 other speakers at the free one day Formal Verification conference held at Reading, UK on Thursday, 21 May and you have the option to attend in person or via remote access.

Attendees will gain from the event whether they are just trying to learn how to apply formal verification or expert users.

Places are limited and this event often sells out so we recommend early registration.

Speaker and registration details can be found here

The post It’s all in the Model : Verifying Complex Arbitration Schemes using Formal appeared first on TVS.

Categories: Software Testing

Formal weapons for Microprocessor Verification

Test And Verification Services Blog - Wed, 13/05/2015 - 06:56

Laurent Arditi of ARM will speak on “Formal weapons for Microprocessor Verification”. The usage of formal verification within ARM is much wider than only Assertion Based Verification. We use formal techniques to hunt for many different classes of bugs, and have developed a range of flows with different focuses.

We have also developed some best practices and tricks to increase the efficiency of formal verification, while make it usable by the masses. The presentation will show how this has been use in practice on several microprocessor design and validation projects , and will focus on the following major points:

  • Formal verification has many application areas
  • Formal verification is highly efficient to find bugs in designs
  • Knowledge sharing about best practices is essential

The free one day conference is held at Reading, UK on Thursday, 21 May and you have the option to attend in person or via remote access. Attendees will gain from the event whether they are just trying to learn how to apply formal verification or expert users.

Places are limited and this event often sells out so we recommend early registration.

Speaker and registration details can be found here.

The post Formal weapons for Microprocessor Verification appeared first on TVS.

Categories: Software Testing

Lessons Learned Testing QA Mail for Black Ops Testing

Alan Richardson's Blog - Tue, 12/05/2015 - 18:04

On the Black Ops Testing Webinar of 11th May 2015 we tested QA Mail. You can find a write up and watch the webinar replay over on BlackOpsTesting.com

This post, expands a little on how I approached the testing and what I learned.

A long time ago, on a job far away, my team and I had to test website registrations and emails on various account events.

For our interactive testing this was fairly simple, we could use our company accounts or gmail accounts and then reset the environment and then we could re-register again. For the automation we needed a different solution. We didn't want to use gmail 'dot' and 'plus' accounts because we felt that the number of emails might put us against the gmail terms and conditions.

We started using mailinator.com creating adhoc email addresses for the automation, and I created some abstractions to read and delete the emails. But mailinator introduced a captcha part way through our testing and our automation failed.

I created a fairly simple appengine tool which acted as an email sink, and I wrapped a simple API around it for our automation. AppEngine has changed so much since then that the code I wrote will no longer work. But QA Mail does a very similar job to the AppEngine code that I wrote.

It provides a simple GUI and simple API wrapper around a polling daemon which reads a mailbox folder and brings in emails.

Great.

I approached the Black Ops Testing Webinar as a learning experience.


  • I didn't know too much about SMTP or email
  • I wanted to experiment with API Automation from a zero to 'working' state as fast as possible
  • I wanted to experiment with sending emails from Java
  • I wanted to know what tool support I would need for interrogating and comparing emails


Automation Abstractions
I started with the automation. And first off wanted to de-risk it by making sure I could send emails.

I had a quick try of the Javax mail libraries, and quickly decided to find an abstraction library to cut down on the time I required to get up to speed and sending emails fast.

I started using Simple Java Mail  https://github.com/bbottema/simple-java-mail

With a few basic emails sent, I started to work on the API abstractions for QA Mail. You can see the various twists and turns I took via the history on github

https://github.com/eviltester/qamail_automation

I created abstractions at a few different levels:


  • A QA Mail Rest API Call abstraction
  • A QA Mail Domain abstraction
  • A Mailbox abstraction


These all work at a similar level so they overlap a little.

This allowed me to create basic automation fairly simply.

They lack a way of conducting automation to twist the API calls i.e.


  • make the REST call with a POST instead of a GET
  • add null parameters
  • use badly named params
  • add new params into the calls
  • re-order the params in the calls
  • etc.


I could achieve the above with direct calls using RestAssured, but since they are fairly common requirements when testing an API, I need to identify a different way of building abstraction layers which support 'testing' and not just 'exercising' the API.

In this particular instance I didn't need that flexibility since the API would have thrown 500 errors on invalid calls. QA Mail was written to meet the needs of a single user and graciously released to open source in the event that it might help others.

I did use the API abstractions to test for different combinations of routings e.g. no 'to', multiple cc, and bcc etc.

Unfortunately we were using an older version of the app which did have a bug in this area, so I didn't pursue this line of enquiry long. The bug has been fixed in the main code branch and on the QA Mail demo server.

Testing Emails
After sending a few emails, it became quickly apparent that I didn't really know what I was looking at in the raw email view.

I'm used to looking at HTTP headers, I'm not used to looking at email headers.

Was the email I was seeing correctly rendered?

How could I know?

Oracles for domains we don't know well can make testing harder in the initial stages of building domain knowledge. One strategy I use involves me finding alternative sources of rendering the information via complementary or competing renderers.

In this instance I used similar tools: mailinator and temp-mail.

Both of these accept emails to anonymous mailboxes and render the email as raw text so you can see the headers.

I saved these as text files and compared the output through winmerge.

I found differences in the headers and had to go look them up to try and understand them. Oft times, many of the headers are actually added by the routing servers the mail winds its way through, so what I'm seeing is not what I actually created as the email.

So I needed to find a way to observe the emails I was sending out in the first place.

For the automation, I found a debug flag on Simple Java Mail which output the raw email smtp session to stdout so I can see the original message, headers and encoding. I was then able to compare this to the output and see what the routing had added, and what might have been added by QA Mail. In the final analysis, nothing was added by QA Mail, it simply sucks out the message after it has flowed through postfix.

For my interactive testing, I discovered the 'Show Original' menu item in gmail. This lets me see the 'raw' email sent to me, and which I'm sending out.

Very handy - I've actually become addicted to looking at email headers now, and most of the emails I receive I check the headers. I find it amazing how much information is contained in these about the machines that the email has passed through in its travels. I encourage you to have a look for yourself. Never again will I send an email direct from machine - I'll always try and use a server based tool to avoid giving away my machine ip addresses.

Observing the System Under Test
One of the interesting challenges I faced testing this was isolating where issues were introduced.

QA Mail runs on a server, so I can only observe it via logs.

It provides one log by default the log for the import daemon that polls the mailbox folder.

I ssh'd into the test environment and could 'tail -f' the log file.

This way, when I started testing different email address formats I could see if they were actually hitting the system.

I found that many were not. valid emails such as "1234--@" and "()<>[]:,;@\\\"!#$%&'*+-/=?^_`{}| ~.a" were not reaching the mailbox that QA Mail polled. They were being rejected by postfix, making it impossible for me to test how QA Mail would handle extreme email formats.

Identifying where processing occurs in an end to end system is a common challenge and one we should be aware of when testing. So I recommend trying to  understand the architecture of the application under test and trying to add observation points in as many positions in the chain as you can.


Summary
Normally when testing emails, I've been more focused on:


  • was an email sent?
  • Did the email render correctly?


When testing QA Mail I had to focus on:


  • Was it pulling in the appropriate information from the mailbox?
  • Was it routing the emails to the appropriate database tables?


And this forced me to consider new ways of observing and interacting with the system.




Categories: Agile, Software Testing

The Little Black dress versus Digital Transformation

Heidi Kristoffersen's Blog - Tue, 12/05/2015 - 16:03

Its silhouette has changed over the years, perhaps more than any other piece of clothing, however it still remains the one dress that will take you practically anywhere and has the potential to stay with you for life. The success of the little black dress is that it is simple yet elegant and Coco Chanel made it ubiquitous.

What’s the Little Black Dress got to do with Quality – in my view, tons!

An ill fitted Black Dress (LBD) will not make you look good or stylish, it will not make you the center of attention. If the garment used to create the LBD is of poor quality it will not last, you will be wasting you money and your well-earned reputation may very well be tarnished. It doesn’t have to be that way.

If you spend time and invest in getting it fitted so that it suits you it will support you and it will bring out the best in you – you will get noticed and taken seriously. It should remain simple and elegant so that you can underline it with accessories making you stand out.

Now imagine above in the context of your Digital transformation (DT). Is it right for your business, does it fit you? Or are you trying to fit a square pick into a round hole – the symptoms of this will initially show up as missed deadlines in the small, growing bigger. Excuses will initially be plausible and believable but then turning into arguments and disagreements as well as significant budget overrun. Your DT is now spiralling downward – it is becoming difficult to regain credibility and your customers are starting to vote with their feet, going to the competitors.

Think about it, is your DT a result of the latest FAD in the industry or will it have the potential to become a household item/name – if so have you thought quality into every single process in a simple and elegant way.

A simple and elegant Executive Quality Strategy should focus on what is important in the DT to both business and it’s customers – keep it SMART. Once it is implemented and matured then you can start to accessories it with all sorts of fancy elements and tools.

A Simple and Elegant Executive Quality Strategy should protect your Brand and your revenue.


Categories: Software Testing

When Developing new Silicon IP, Is First Pass Success possible?

Test And Verification Services Blog - Tue, 12/05/2015 - 07:31

This article explains the need for your integrated circuit designs to be first pass successes and not the typical two to three spins or more to reach the targeted performance.

The question is this: Is first pass success feasible and should be expected? So what are some of the decision criteria if followed would help enable your designs to be first pass successes?

Read more.

The post When Developing new Silicon IP, Is First Pass Success possible? appeared first on TVS.

Categories: Software Testing