summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/related.tex
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorYann Herklotz <git@yannherklotz.com>2021-01-18 16:18:54 +0000
committerYann Herklotz <git@yannherklotz.com>2021-01-18 16:18:54 +0000
commit24d259e150e844ec842a6df77c4b7f3a9ec9bfa0 (patch)
tree2d07539a5d78abbf9059f9462c28d46fa8228314 /related.tex
parentdc0eb6c626a4068a9d28da5caafce7c39c3fd6ea (diff)
downloadfccm21_esrhls-24d259e150e844ec842a6df77c4b7f3a9ec9bfa0.tar.gz
fccm21_esrhls-24d259e150e844ec842a6df77c4b7f3a9ec9bfa0.zip
Reduction in sections
Diffstat (limited to 'related.tex')
-rw-r--r--related.tex2
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/related.tex b/related.tex
index 8887e52..b2fd442 100644
--- a/related.tex
+++ b/related.tex
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
\section{Related Work}
-The only other work of which we are aware on fuzzing HLS tools is that by Lidbury et al. \cite{lidbury15_many_core_compil_fuzzin}, who tested several OpenCL compilers, including an HLS compiler from Altera (now Intel). They were only able to subject that compiler to superficial testing because so many of the test-cases they generated led to it crashing. In comparison to our work: where Lidbury et al. generated target-independent OpenCL programs that could be used to test HLS tools and conventional compilers alike, we specifically generate programs that are tailored for HLS (e.g. with HLS-specific pragmas) with the aim of testing the HLS tools more deeply. Another difference is that where we test using sequential C programs, they test using highly concurrent OpenCL programs, and thus have to go to great lengths to ensure that any discrepancies observed between compilers cannot be attributed to the inherent nondeterminism of concurrency.
+The only other work of which we are aware on fuzzing HLS tools is that by Lidbury et al. \cite{lidbury15_many_core_compil_fuzzin}, who tested several OpenCL compilers, including an HLS compiler from Altera (now Intel). They were only able to subject that compiler to superficial testing because so many of the test-cases they generated led to it crashing. In comparison to our work: where Lidbury et al. generated target-independent OpenCL programs that could be used to test HLS tools and conventional compilers alike, we specifically generate programs that are tailored for HLS (e.g. with HLS-specific pragmas and only including supported constructs) with the aim of testing the HLS tools more deeply. Another difference is that where we test using sequential C programs, they test using highly concurrent OpenCL programs, and thus have to go to great lengths to ensure that any discrepancies observed between compilers cannot be attributed to the inherent nondeterminism of concurrency.
Other stages of the FPGA toolchain have been subjected to fuzzing. Herklotz et al.~\cite{verismith} tested several FPGA synthesis tools using randomly generated Verilog programs. Where they concentrated on the RTL-to-netlist stage of hardware design, we focus our attention on the earlier C-to-RTL stage.