Update on Overleaf.

1 files changed, 3 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/method.tex b/method.tex
index 6651d33..1105056 100644
--- a/method.tex
+++ b/method.tex
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ This is vital for our work since we want to generate programs that are HLS-frien
     \centering
     \begin{tabular}{ll}
       \toprule
-      \textbf{Properties/Parameters} & \textbf{Change}  \\
+      \textbf{Property/Parameter} & \textbf{Change}  \\
       \midrule
       \code{statement\_ifelse\_prob} & Increased \\
       \code{statement\_for\_prob} & Reduced \\
@@ -171,6 +171,8 @@ Having generated HLS-friendly programs and automatically augmented them with dir
 %Figure~\ref{fig:method:toolflow} shows the three stages of testing, depicted as the testing environment in the dashed area.
 For each HLS tool in turn, we compile the C program to RTL and then simulate the RTL. 
 Independently, we also compile the C program using GCC and execute it. 
+\JW{I added the following sentence -- please check.} Although each HLS tool has its own built-in C compiler that could be used to obtain the reference output, we prefer to obtain the reference output ourselves in order to minimise our reliance on the tool being tested. \JW{Do we want to add something like `Indeed, we found at least one program where the output from GCC did not match the output from the HLS tool's built-in C compiler.'?}
+
 To ensure that our testing is scalable for a large number of large, random programs, we also enforce several time-outs: we set a 5-minute time-out for C execution and a 2-hour time-out for C-to-RTL synthesis and RTL simulation.
 We do not count time-outs as bugs, but we record them.