Lockstep Simulation

Technique

First seen 8/10/2026

Last seen 8/10/2026

Evidence 2 chunks

NEIGHBORHOOD

No graph connections found for this entity yet. It may appear in future ingestion runs.

explore full graph →

RELATIONSHIPS

11 connections

Formal Verification ← compares with 85% 2e

Formal verification and lockstep simulation are both employed as methodologies for functional faithfulness verification, representing complementary approaches.

Design Under Test uses → 95% 1e

Lockstep simulation drives and monitors the Design Under Test in parallel with the ISS.

Architectural State uses → 97% 1e

Lockstep simulation compares architectural state tuples (PC, registers, memory, CSRs) at every instruction commit.

DPI-C uses → 93% 1e

Lockstep simulation employs DPI-C as a language binding mechanism for communication between the DUT and ISS.

Instruction Coverage evaluates → 90% 1e

Lockstep simulation tracks instruction coverage as a key metric for verification completeness.

Instruction Set Simulator uses → 95% 1e

Lockstep simulation runs the DUT in parallel with an ISS and compares architectural state at each commit event.

Functional Coverage evaluates → 90% 1e

Lockstep simulation tracks functional coverage as a key metric for verification completeness.

Pipeline Hazard Conditions evaluates → 88% 1e

Lockstep simulation verifies pipeline hazard conditions as part of comprehensive architectural testing.

SupeRFIVe ← implements 95% 1e

SupeRFIVe is an exemplar tool that implements the lockstep simulation methodology for RISC-V verification.

UVM-TLM uses → 88% 1e

UVM-TLM frameworks are used within the lockstep simulation methodology for RISC-V verification.

Assertion-based Monitoring uses → 88% 1e

Assertion-based monitoring is used alongside lockstep simulation to ensure all architectural features and hazard conditions are tested.