Update on Overleaf.

1 files changed, 6 insertions, 8 deletions

diff --git a/intro.tex b/intro.tex
index 03b2d26..2364466 100644
--- a/intro.tex
+++ b/intro.tex
@@ -6,11 +6,6 @@ It is even being used in high-assurance settings, such as financial services~\ci
 
 Our method is brought over from the compiler testing literature. We use a tool called Csmith~\cite{yang11_findin_under_bugs_c_compil} to generate well-formed C programs from the subset of the C language that is supported by all the HLS tools we test, and then augment each program with randomly chosen HLS-specific directives. We synthesise each C program to RTL, and use a Verilog simulator to calculate its return value. If synthesis crashes, or if this return value differs from the return value obtained by executing a binary compiled from the C program by gcc, then we have found a candidate bug. We then use trial-and-error to reduce the C program to a minimal version that still triggers a bug.
 
-
-
-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}
@@ -27,7 +22,10 @@ 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{}
+
+\begin{framed}
+\vspace{-3pt}
+\paragraph{An example of a fuzzed buggy program}
 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. 
@@ -42,10 +40,10 @@ Finally, the value of \code{b} is an oracle that could not be changed without ma
 Producing such circumstances within C code for HLS testing is both arduous and counter-intuitive to human testers. 
 In contrast, producing non-intuitive, complex but valid C programs is the cornerstone of fuzzing tools. 
 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}
-
+% \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}
 
+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. 
 
 \paragraph{Our contribution}
 \begin{itemize}