diff options
author | n.ramanathan14 <n.ramanathan14@imperial.ac.uk> | 2020-09-12 10:26:12 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | overleaf <overleaf@localhost> | 2020-09-12 11:10:42 +0000 |
commit | 4aed782b474313a00b4158cfc0a90c051b71b55a (patch) | |
tree | ad1fb8056b6f5422ebd3fe92ca66dd0d8677861b /intro.tex | |
parent | 8fe40aceeba6c26306a3e4164083219139f11c58 (diff) | |
download | fccm21_esrhls-4aed782b474313a00b4158cfc0a90c051b71b55a.tar.gz fccm21_esrhls-4aed782b474313a00b4158cfc0a90c051b71b55a.zip |
Update on Overleaf.
Diffstat (limited to 'intro.tex')
-rw-r--r-- | intro.tex | 10 |
1 files changed, 9 insertions, 1 deletions
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ Our method is brought over from the compiler testing literature. We use a tool c We have tested three widely used HLS tools: LegUp~\cite{canis13_legup}, Xilinx Vivado HLS~\cite{xilinx20_vivad_high_synth}, and the Intel HLS Compiler~\cite{?}. For all three tools, we were able to find valid C programs that cause crashes while compiling and valid C programs that cause wrong RTL to be generated. We have submitted a total of \ref{?} bug reports to the developers, \ref{?} of which have been confirmed and \ref{?} of which have now been fixed at the time of writing. +\begin{framed}{An example of a fuzzed buggy program} \begin{figure} \centering \begin{minted}{c} @@ -26,7 +27,7 @@ int main() { \caption{Miscompilation bug found in Vivado 2018.3 and 2019.2 which returns \code{0x006535FF} instead of \code{0x046535FF} which is the correct result.}\label{fig:vivado_bug1} \end{figure} -\paragraph{An example of a fuzzed buggy program} +\paragraph{} Figure~\ref{fig:vivado_bug1} shows a minimal example that produces the wrong result during RTL simulation in all three versions of VivadoHLS, compared to GCC execution. In this example, we right shift a large integer value \code{b} by values of array elements, in array \code{a}, within iterations of a \code{for}-loop. VivadoHLS returns \code{0x006535FF} instead of \code{0x046535FF} as in GCC. @@ -43,7 +44,14 @@ In contrast, producing non-intuitive, complex but valid C programs is the corner Thus, it was natural to adopt program fuzzing for our HLS testing campaign. \NR{Yann, please double check my claims about the bug. I hope I accurately described what we discussed. }\YH{Yes I agree with all that, I think that is a good description of it} +\end{framed} + + \paragraph{Our contribution} +\begin{itemize} + \item Fuzzing flow + \item Tested against three tools +\end{itemize} We hope that our work serves to stimulate efforts to improve the quality of HLS tools. |