Transaction-Level Modeling and Refinement Using State Charts

  • Rainer Findenig
  • Thomas Leitner
  • Wolfgang Ecker
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8111)


Since State Charts have been introduced, they have proven to be of great use in the design of complex reactive systems. Previous work has shown that, in hardware design, they can be successfully used for transaction-level modeling as well as for cycle-callable systems. This paper presents a structure-preserving refinement approach for State Charts that allows modeling hardware on different abstraction levels, from completely untimed high-level models to cycle callable, in a single model. This single-source approach, on the one hand, eases the agility of the development since changes in any abstraction level are more easily applied in the other levels, and, on the other hand, provides a simple means for checking the consistency of the different abstraction levels.


Abstraction Level State Chart Region Term Completion Event Structure Operational Semantic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Black, D.C., Donovan, J.: SystemC: from the ground up. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aynsley, J.: OSCI TLM-2.0 Language Reference Manual (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Object Management Group: OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Findenig, R., Leitner, T., Esen, V., Ecker, W.: Consistent SystemC and VHDL Code Generation from State Charts for Virtual Prototyping and RTL Synthesis. In: Proceedings of DVCon 2011, San Jose, CA, USA (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Findenig, R., Leitner, T., Velten, M., Ecker, W.: Transaction-Level State Charts in UML and SystemC with Zero-Time Evaluation. In: Proceedings of DVCon 2010, San Jose, CA, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Findenig, R., Leitner, T., Ecker, W.: Single-Source Hardware Modeling of Different Abstraction Levels with State Charts. In: Proceedings of HLDVT 2012, Huntington Beach, CA, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scholz, P.: Incremental design of statechart specifications. Science of Computer Programming 40(1), 119–145 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meng, S., Naixiao, Z., Barbosa, L.S.: On semantics and refinement of UML statecharts: a coalgebraic view. In: Proceedings of SEFM 2004, pp. 164–173 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Said, M.Y., Butler, M., Snook, C.: Language and Tool Support for Class and State Machine Refinement in UML-B. In: Cavalcanti, A., Dams, D.R. (eds.) FM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5850, pp. 579–595. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hendricx, S., Claesen, L.: Verification of Finite-State-Machine Refinements Using a Symbolic Methodology. In: Pierre, L., Kropf, T. (eds.) CHARME 1999. LNCS, vol. 1703, pp. 326–330. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bombieri, N., Fummi, F., Pravadelli, G., Silva, J.M.: Towards Equivalence Checking Between TLM and RTL Models, pp. 113–122. IEEE Computer Society Press (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    von der Beeck, M.: A structured operational semantics for UML-statecharts. Software and Systems Modeling 1(2), 130–141 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liskov, B.: Data Abstraction and HierarchyGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Samek, M.: Practical UML Statecharts in C/C++, 2nd edn. Event-Driven Programming for Embedded Systems. Newnes (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rainer Findenig
    • 1
    • 2
  • Thomas Leitner
    • 2
  • Wolfgang Ecker
    • 3
  1. 1.Upper Austrian University o. A. S.HagenbergAustria
  2. 2.DMCE GmbH & Co KGLinzAustria
  3. 3.Infineon Technologies AGNeubibergGermany

Personalised recommendations