Verification for HLS designs

The value of HLS depends on a sound verification methodology. We build self-checking C++ testbenches with reference-model comparison, randomisation, and coverage, then define the C/RTL co-simulation, equivalence, and downstream sign-off strategy—for a design we implement, or for your team’s existing HLS code.

When this service fits

• An HLS block passes C simulation, but there is no clear evidence it is ready for sign-off.
• Coverage, co-simulation, or equivalence results are hard to interpret or reproduce.
• A new HLS project should have its verification plan defined before implementation starts.

What the work covers

• A verification plan with traceability from requirements to tests and coverage
• A reference-model contract and bit-accurate numeric checks
• Directed and constrained-random C++ tests with reproducible seeds
• C/RTL co-simulation covering stalls, reset, and pipeline fill and drain
• Coverage closure, and a formal or equivalence strategy where the flow supports it

What you receive

• Verification plan and requirements traceability
• Self-checking testbench and deterministic regressions
• Coverage and co-simulation reports
• Sign-off checklist with justified waivers

Deliverables are reproducible and kept together, so another engineer can review and rerun the work. The exact list and acceptance evidence are agreed before work starts.

How it starts

Share what exists today: the reference model, the HLS source, the current tests, and how the RTL is signed off downstream. The gaps between those usually define the first piece of work.

Related reading

• HLS verification guide: the complete evidence chain from C++ model to RTL sign-off.
• RTL-to-HLS migration: how verification preserves a legacy block’s contract.
• All Videalt services: compare engagement models and common questions.