diff options
author | John Wickerson <j.wickerson@imperial.ac.uk> | 2020-09-15 10:12:29 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | overleaf <overleaf@localhost> | 2020-09-15 10:13:09 +0000 |
commit | 57d8ac04b244070f8a012a8e81298578a0ae3b2d (patch) | |
tree | f8df1ab35c259258747296cb9e6d1e5f0b7ebdb0 | |
parent | b4b05be981d7ea3043ddcce6766dfa0f260bc532 (diff) | |
download | fccm21_esrhls-57d8ac04b244070f8a012a8e81298578a0ae3b2d.tar.gz fccm21_esrhls-57d8ac04b244070f8a012a8e81298578a0ae3b2d.zip |
Update on Overleaf.
-rw-r--r-- | eval.tex | 5 | ||||
-rw-r--r-- | method.tex | 16 |
2 files changed, 13 insertions, 8 deletions
@@ -40,7 +40,8 @@ Intel i++ & $\ge 1$\\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} - \caption{Unique bugs found in each tool. \JW{is `all versions' correct here? and should we add version numbers like in the Venn?}\YH{Yes it is actually correct here, I don't mind adding the specific version either though}} + \caption{Unique bugs found in each tool. %\JW{is `all versions' correct here? and should we add version numbers like in the Venn?}\YH{Yes it is actually correct here, I don't mind adding the specific version either though}\JW{Ok let's leave it as-is.} + } \label{tab:unique_bugs} \end{table} @@ -111,7 +112,7 @@ Interestingly, as an indicator of reliability of HLS tools, the blue ribbon show \node[white] at (2,2.5) {36}; \node[white] at (4,2.25) {41}; \end{tikzpicture} - \caption{A Sankey diagram that tracks 3645 test-cases through three different versions of Vivado HLS. The ribbons collect the test-cases that pass and fail together. The 3573 test-cases that pass in all three versions are not depicted. + \caption{A Sankey diagram that tracks 3645 test-cases through three different versions of Vivado HLS. The ribbons collect the test-cases that pass and fail together. The black bars are labelled with the total number of test-case failures per version. The 3573 test-cases that pass in all three versions are not depicted. }\label{fig:sankey_diagram} \end{figure} % \NR{Why are there missing numbers in the ribbons?} @@ -4,12 +4,16 @@ This section describes how we conducted our testing campaign, the overall flow of which is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:method:toolflow}. \input{tool-figure} -\begin{itemize} -\item In~\S\ref{sec:method:csmith}, we describe how we configure Csmith to generate HLS-friendly random programs for our testing campaign. -\item In~\S\ref{sec:method:annotate}, we discuss how we augment those random programs with directives and the necessary configuration files for HLS compilation. -\item In~\S\ref{sec:method:testing}, we discuss how we set up compilation and co-simulation checking for the three HLS tools under test. -\item Finally, in~\S\ref{sec:method:reduce}, we discuss how we reduce problematic programs in order to obtain minimal examples of bugs. -\end{itemize} +%\begin{itemize} +%\item +In~\S\ref{sec:method:csmith}, we describe how we configure Csmith to generate HLS-friendly random programs for our testing campaign. +%\item +In~\S\ref{sec:method:annotate}, we discuss how we augment those random programs with directives and the necessary configuration files for HLS compilation. +%\item +In~\S\ref{sec:method:testing}, we discuss how we set up compilation and co-simulation checking for the three HLS tools under test. +%\item +Finally, in~\S\ref{sec:method:reduce}, we discuss how we reduce problematic programs in order to obtain minimal examples of bugs. +%\end{itemize} % How we configure Csmith so that it only generates HLS-friendly programs. % \item How we process the programs generated by Csmith to add in labels on loops etc. |