1.

Explain the Purpose of Void Functions in System Verilog

Void functions in SystemVerilog are functions that do not return any value.
These are used for executing operations where no result is required. Their
primary purpose is to perform side effects such as logging, displaying messages,
or modifying global states without the need for a return value. Unlike tasks, void
functions do not consume simulation time and can be used in both sequential
and parallel processes without affecting the simulation timing.

For example, in a simulation, you might want to print the value of a signal or
display a message at a certain point in time. This can be accomplished using

)
void functions. Void functions provide a way to encapsulate actions like printing

C
debug information or updating state variables without returning any value,
making the code cleaner and easier to understand.

(7
Key Uses of Void Functions:

1. Logging or Debugging: You can use void functions to display messages

M
in the simulation, which helps in debugging.
2. Reusable Tasks: They can encapsulate repetitive actions, reducing the
C
amount of redundant code in testbenches.
3. No Return Value: Since they do not return any value, void functions are
used primarily for side-effect-based actions (such as updating registers or
L

driving signals).
A

Example from SystemVerilog:

JW

function void display_state(string state_name);

$display("Current state: %s", state_name);
endfunction
A

This function doesn't return any value but performs an action (printing the
state). It can be called whenever required to print the current state of a system.
PR

2. Analyze the Impact of Incorrect Time Value Usage in

Procedural Statements

In SystemVerilog, time values play a crucial role in controlling when events

occur during simulation. Incorrect usage of time values in procedural statements
can result in unintended behavior, such as timing mismatches, race conditions,
and even missed events.

Impact of Incorrect Time Value Usage:

 1. Timing Mismatches: If time delays (#time) are incorrectly specified, it
can cause signals to arrive too early or too late. This misalignment can
lead to incorrect simulation results, especially in designs where precise
timing is critical, such as in clocked circuits. For example, a signal that is
supposed to be sampled on the rising edge of a clock might be missed if
the time delay is not properly set.

2. Race Conditions: Incorrect delays or improper use of event triggers can

lead to race conditions. A race condition occurs when two or more
events happen in an unpredictable order, leading to non-deterministic
behavior. This is especially problematic in parallel simulations where the

)
order of signal updates can cause erroneous behavior.

C
3. Missed Events: When procedural statements depend on specific events,
such as clock edges, incorrect delays or time values can cause missed

(7
events. For example, if an event is triggered with #0 delay, it may not
match the clock edge timing, causing a missed edge or violation of
setup/hold times.

M
4. Simulation Failures: In complex designs, incorrect time values can lead
to failures in the simulation itself. This can result in significant
C
discrepancies between expected and actual behavior, often making the
design appear flawed when it may simply be a result of time
L

synchronization issues.
A

Solution:
JW

Using clocking blocks and synchronized triggers (e.g., @(posedge clk))

helps ensure correct timing alignment. Additionally, using time-related keywords
such as timeunit and timeprecision ensures consistency across modules and
correct simulation behavior.
A
PR

3. Design a Complete Test Bench Using SystemVerilog for a

Simple ALU Module

A SystemVerilog testbench for an ALU (Arithmetic Logic Unit) should include

three main components: an interface for managing the input/output signals,
stimulus generation to apply test inputs, and assertions to check the
correctness of the outputs.

ALU Interface
interface alu_if;
logic [3:0] a, b; // ALU Inputs
 logic [2:0] op; // ALU Operation Code
logic [4:0] result; // ALU Output
endinterface

ALU Module (Design Under Test - DUT)

module alu(alu_if alu);
always_comb begin
case (alu.op)
3'b000: alu.result = alu.a + alu.b; // Addition
3'b001: alu.result = alu.a - alu.b; // Subtraction

)
3'b010: alu.result = alu.a & alu.b; // AND

C
3'b011: alu.result = alu.a | alu.b; // OR
default: alu.result = 5'b0; // Default case
endcase

(7
end
endmodule

Testbench Design
module tb_alu;
M
C
// Interface instantiation
alu_if alu_intf();
L

// Instantiate the ALU module (DUT)

A

alu dut(alu_intf);
JW

initial begin
// Apply stimulus and check ALU functionality
alu_intf.a = 4'd10; alu_intf.b = 4'd5; alu_intf.op = 3'b000; #10; // Add
assert(alu_intf.result == 15) else $fatal("Addition failed!");
A

alu_intf.a = 4'd15; alu_intf.b = 4'd7; alu_intf.op = 3'b001; #10; //

Subtract
PR

assert(alu_intf.result == 8) else $fatal("Subtraction failed!");

alu_intf.a = 4'd12; alu_intf.b = 4'd8; alu_intf.op = 3'b010; #10; // AND

assert(alu_intf.result == 8) else $fatal("AND operation failed!");
end
endmodule

Explanation:

● Interface: This simplifies the connections between the testbench and

DUT.
 ● Stimulus Timing: Ensures input signals are applied with proper timing
relative to the clock cycle.
● Assertions: Ensure the ALU produces the expected outputs for different
operations. The use of assert helps automatically detect mismatches and
report failures, improving the efficiency of testing.

This structure is reusable and easy to maintain, and by adding more test cases,
you can increase the test coverage.

4. Explain the Purpose of Randomization in Verification

)
Environments

C
Randomization is a powerful feature in SystemVerilog that enables the

(7
generation of a broad range of input test cases to validate designs thoroughly.
The purpose of randomization is to cover as many different scenarios as
possible, including edge cases, without having to write each test case manually.
It is used extensively in functional verification and constrained random
testing to automate test creation. M
C
The PDF highlights that randomization helps uncover bugs that are often
missed in traditional deterministic testing methods. By providing a diverse set of
input values, randomization ensures that the design is tested under various
L

conditions, improving the overall test coverage.

A

Key Benefits:
JW

1. Improved Coverage: Randomization enables testing of a larger space of

input combinations, uncovering corner cases and edge conditions.
2. Efficiency: It reduces the effort needed to create individual test cases for
each combination manually.
A

3. Error Detection: By exposing the design to unexpected scenarios,

randomization can reveal hidden bugs, especially in designs with complex
PR

state machines or protocols.

For example, when verifying a network protocol, you can randomize packet
sizes, addresses, and payloads while ensuring they conform to protocol rules.
This guarantees that the DUT is resilient under varied and realistic conditions.

5. Write a SystemVerilog Example to Randomize the Values

of a 3-Bit Register Within the Range 1–6
Randomizing the values of a 3-bit register within a constrained range can be
achieved using constraints in SystemVerilog. The constraints ensure that only
valid values within the specified range (1–6) are randomly generated.

Example:
class RandomReg;
rand bit [2:0] reg_value; // 3-bit register

// Constraint to limit the value range to 1–6

constraint valid_range {
reg_value >= 3'd1 && reg_value <= 3'd6;

)
}

C
endclass

module tb_randomize;

(7
initial begin
RandomReg rand_reg = new();

if (rand_reg.randomize())
M
// Randomize the register value with constraints

$display("Randomized reg_value: %0d", rand_reg.reg_value);

C
else
$fatal("Randomization failed!");
end
L

endmodule
A
JW

Explanation:

● The class RandomReg has a 3-bit register reg_value.

● The constraint ensures that the randomized value falls within the range
1–6 (3'b001 to 3'b110).
A

● The randomize() method generates a value within the valid range, and the
result is displayed.
PR

This ensures that the 3-bit register value remains within the desired bounds
during simulation.

6. Design a Constrained Randomization Scenario Where a

Packet's Header Fields Follow Specific Protocol Rules

In a verification environment where you need to randomize a packet's header

fields, constraints ensure that the random values respect the protocol rules. For
example, consider a scenario where the source and destination addresses in a
packet should be within valid ranges, and they must not be the same.

Example:
class Packet;
rand bit [7:0] src_addr;
rand bit [7:0] dest_addr;
rand bit [3:0] pkt_type;

// Constraint to ensure protocol validity

constraint valid_packet {

)
src_addr != 8'hFF; // Source address should not be 0xFF

C
dest_addr != src_addr; // Destination address should not be equal to
source
pkt_type inside {[4'h1:4'hF]}; // Valid packet types (1–15)

(7
}
endclass

module tb_random_packet;
initial begin
Packet pkt = new();
M
C
// Randomize packet header with constraints
if (pkt.randomize())
L

$display("Packet: src_addr=%0h, dest_addr=%0h, pkt_type=%0h",

A

pkt.src_addr, pkt.dest_addr, pkt.pkt_type);

else
JW

$fatal("Packet randomization failed!");

end
endmodule
A

This example demonstrates how constraints are used to ensure valid values for
the source and destination addresses while randomizing the packet's header
PR

fields. These constraints enforce the rules of the protocol during randomization,
ensuring realistic and valid input scenarios.

7. Evaluate the Effectiveness of Generic Cover Groups in

Improving Reusability Across Verification Projects

Generic cover groups are a powerful feature in SystemVerilog that enhances

reusability across verification projects by allowing the creation of coverage
models that can be parameterized and adapted to different designs. The PDF
explains how generic cover groups improve testbench modularity, consistency,
and efficiency.

Advantages:

1. Reusability: Generic cover groups allow you to define coverage models

that can be reused across multiple verification projects with minimal
modification. By parameterizing the signals or conditions being monitored,
these cover groups can be adapted to different modules, reducing the
need for rewriting coverage code.

2. Consistency: They ensure that the same coverage model is applied

)
consistently across different designs, improving the quality and

C
predictability of verification. This standardization also reduces the chance
of errors due to inconsistent coverage models.

(7
3. Efficiency: By using generic cover groups, verification engineers can save
time. Instead of creating separate cover groups for every new design or
feature, a single, flexible cover group can be reused, improving efficiency
M
in large-scale verification environments.
C
Example:
class GenericCoverGroup #(int WIDTH);
L

covergroup cg(bit [WIDTH-1:0] signal);

coverpoint signal;
A

endgroup
endclass
JW

This example shows a generic cover group that monitors signals of varying
widths, ensuring it can be reused for different types of signals across projects.
A

By making the cover group flexible, you can easily adapt it to any design without
needing to write new coverage logic each time.
PR

In conclusion, generic cover groups enhance the modularity and reusability of

verification environments, making them more efficient and consistent across
projects.