diff options
| author | Yann Herklotz <git@yannherklotz.com> | 2020-09-15 02:27:51 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Yann Herklotz <git@yannherklotz.com> | 2020-09-15 02:27:51 +0100 |
| commit | a5507ce92f57bafa51131386a7e2e0bfe62c26e8 (patch) | |
| tree | e897821e035acb858187276a6f43e751b4b830bf /conclusion.tex | |
| parent | 8922c77f9ba66a9232a106ad5635b7a70c1d9630 (diff) | |
| download | fccm21_esrhls-a5507ce92f57bafa51131386a7e2e0bfe62c26e8.tar.gz fccm21_esrhls-a5507ce92f57bafa51131386a7e2e0bfe62c26e8.zip | |
Add more stuff
Diffstat (limited to 'conclusion.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | conclusion.tex | 2 |
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/conclusion.tex b/conclusion.tex index bad70b9..273b705 100644 --- a/conclusion.tex +++ b/conclusion.tex @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ \section{Conclusion} -We have shown how existing fuzzing tools can be modified so that their outputs are compatible with HLS tools. We have used this testing framework to run 10,000 test cases \JW{check numbers} through three different HLS tools. In total, we found at least 6 individual and unique bugs in all the tools, which have been reduced, analysed, and reported to the tool vendors. These bugs include crashes as well as instances of generated designs not behaving in the same way as the original code. +We have shown how existing fuzzing tools can be modified so that their outputs are compatible with HLS tools. We have used this testing framework to run 6,700 test cases through three different HLS tools, including 3,645 test cases through three different version of Vivado HLS to show how bugs are fixed and introduced. In total, we found at least 6 individual and unique bugs in all the tools, which have been reduced, analysed, and reported to the tool vendors. These bugs include crashes as well as instances of generated designs not behaving in the same way as the original code. One can always question how much bugs found by fuzzers really \emph{matter}, given that they are usually found by combining language features in ways that are vanishingly unlikely to happen `in the wild'~\cite{marcozzi+19}. This question is especially pertinent for our particular context of HLS tools, which are well-known to have restrictions on the language features that they handle. Nevertheless, we would argue that any errors in the HLS tool are worth identifying because they have the potential to cause problems, either now or in the future. And when HLS tools \emph{do} go wrong (or indeed any sort of compiler for that matter), it is particularly infuriating for end-users because it is so difficult to identify whether the fault lies with the tool or with the program it has been given to compile. |