diff options
author | Yann Herklotz <git@yannherklotz.com> | 2020-09-15 11:13:16 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Yann Herklotz <git@yannherklotz.com> | 2020-09-15 11:13:16 +0100 |
commit | 669bc9dbe8f73b56ec34d68eecec9b7758d0890d (patch) | |
tree | e00c8e25a8151feb73206355e48dd94620707945 | |
parent | 5000737a898c4083c9b7c844ffc3abf964fc5bdb (diff) | |
parent | 57d8ac04b244070f8a012a8e81298578a0ae3b2d (diff) | |
download | fccm21_esrhls-669bc9dbe8f73b56ec34d68eecec9b7758d0890d.tar.gz fccm21_esrhls-669bc9dbe8f73b56ec34d68eecec9b7758d0890d.zip |
Merge branch 'master' of https://git.overleaf.com/5f2d21b9b10d6c0001c164a4 into master
-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. |