Skip to content
DenseChip
Learn
PracticeCode labInterview

DenseChip

Navigate

Menu

LearnPracticeCode labInterview

Tools

All toolsSV editorCode repoResume
DenseChip

Practice, courses, and chip-design tools in one focused workspace.

LearnPracticeCode labInterviewToolsLearning paths

© 2026 DenseChip

AboutRoadmapCareersInternshipsFAQContactPrivacyTerms
Skip to lesson

Course contents

  • How to Use This Course
  • Reading Paths
  • Glossary
  • Metrics Reference
  • Formal Cheat Sheet
  • Formal Foundations19
  • Properties and SVA16
  • Property Development and Constraints19
  • Proof Engines and Convergence23
  • Formal Applications20
  • Equivalence Checking14
    • Combinational Equivalence and the Miter
    • Sequential Equivalence
    • RTL to Gate: What LEC Assumes
    • ECO and Alternative-Implementation Checks
      • ECO Equivalence Flow
      • Two Implementations of the Arbiter
      • Equivalence Is Not Correctness
  • Formal Coverage and Signoff15
  • Methodology and Debug13
  • Interview Prep15
  • Capstone: A Chip-Block Verification Lab24
Loading lesson

←Equivalence Checking
  1. Topics
  2. Formal Verification
  3. Equivalence Checking
  4. ECO and Alternative-Implementation Checks

Part 6 of 10Part 6 of 10/Equivalence CheckingAll levels

ECO and Alternative-Implementation Checks

Prove a change did what was intended and nothing else: equivalence outside the fix, difference exactly where intended.

  • 3topics
  • 3lessons

An engineering change fixes one line in the arbiter and the netlist is rebuilt overnight. Simulation of the fixed scenario passes, but nobody checks whether the fix altered any other grant pattern. Equivalence checking answers both halves: the revised block differs exactly where the fix intended, and agrees everywhere else. This topic runs that flow on the round-robin arbiter and closes with the honest limit of the method.

Lesson

After it you can...

ECO Equivalence Flow

Prove an ECO changed only what was intended.

Two Implementations of the Arbiter

Prove token-ring against rotating-mask with the correspondence invariant.

Equivalence Is Not Correctness

Pair every equivalence with a property proof on the reference.

Suggested order: top to bottom. The ECO flow is the daily-use pattern; the twin-arbiter lesson is its hardest workout; the last lesson states the limit that keeps the method honest. For the synthesis-side ECO flow see Proving an ECO.

The change region is identified, agreement is proved everywhere outside it and the intended difference is proved inside it; anything else is a side effect.
The ECO check: agreement outside the intended change, difference exactly inside it.
Check yourself The ECO comparison agrees everywhere including the fixed condition. What does that mean?

The fix had no effect on the compared behaviour: either the condition is unreachable, the comparison does not stimulate it, or the edit did not take. All three need an answer before signoff.

If asked how to sign off an ECO, answer with the two halves plus the caveat: agree outside, differ exactly inside, and the reference still needs its property proofs. The third clause is what separates a careful answer from a fast one.

PreviousNext: ECO Equivalence Flow

Up next

Up nextECO Equivalence Flow

Sign in to save progress

Practice this lessonPrevious lessonReport an error

See also

  • Combinational Equivalence and the Miter
  • Sequential Equivalence
  • RTL to Gate: What LEC Assumes