Update on Overleaf.

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/related.tex b/related.tex
index 1e4b0eb..811c326 100644
--- a/related.tex
+++ b/related.tex
@@ -4,7 +4,8 @@ The only other work of which we are aware on fuzzing HLS tools is that by Lidbur
 
 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.
 
-Several authors have taken steps toward more rigorously engineered HLS tools that may be more resilient to testing campaigns such as ours. One such example might be the Handel-C compiler by Perna and Woodcock~\cite{perna12_mechan_wire_wise_verif_handel_c_synth} which has been mechanically proven correct, at least in part, using the HOL theorem prover. However, the Handel-C language relies upon the user to perform the parallelisation that is necessary for good hardware performance, and in any case, the tool does not support would require many more checks to avoid data races. Another example is an HLS tool called SPARK~\cite{gupta03_spark}, which contains passes that are mechanically validated during compilation~\cite{chouksey20_verif_sched_condit_behav_high_level_synth}, such as the scheduling algorithm.  Unfortunately the tools are not readily available yet to test properly, or do not support C as input directly. Finally, the HLS tool Catapult C~\cite{mentor20_catap_high_level_synth} is designed only to produce an output netlist if it can mechanically prove it equivalent to the input program. It should therefore never produce wrong RTL.  Future work will address testing Catapult-C as well, however, as Vivado HLS, LegUp HLS and Intel HLS are more prevalent these were prioritised. \JW{Obvious reader question at this point: why not test that claim by giving our Csmith test cases to Catapult C too? Can we address that here? No worries if not; but shall we try and do that after the deadline anyway?}\YH{Yes, definitely, it would be great to get an idea of how Catapult C performs, and I currently have it installed already.  I have added a small sentence for that now, but let me know if I should mention this in the conclusion instead though. }
+Several authors have taken steps toward more rigorously engineered HLS tools that may be more resilient to testing campaigns such as ours. One such example might be the Handel-C compiler by Perna and Woodcock~\cite{perna12_mechan_wire_wise_verif_handel_c_synth} which has been mechanically proven correct, at least in part, using the HOL theorem prover. However, the Handel-C language relies upon the user to perform the parallelisation that is necessary for good hardware performance, and in any case, the tool does not support C as input directly. %would require many more checks to avoid data races. 
+Another example is an HLS tool called SPARK~\cite{gupta03_spark}, which contains passes that are mechanically validated during compilation~\cite{chouksey20_verif_sched_condit_behav_high_level_synth}, such as the scheduling algorithm.  Unfortunately the tools are not readily available yet to test properly, or do not support C as input directly. Finally, the HLS tool Catapult C~\cite{mentor20_catap_high_level_synth} is designed only to produce an output netlist if it can mechanically prove it equivalent to the input program. It should therefore never produce wrong RTL.  Future work will address testing Catapult-C as well, however, as Vivado HLS, LegUp HLS and Intel HLS are more prevalent these were prioritised. \JW{Obvious reader question at this point: why not test that claim by giving our Csmith test cases to Catapult C too? Can we address that here? No worries if not; but shall we try and do that after the deadline anyway?}\YH{Yes, definitely, it would be great to get an idea of how Catapult C performs, and I currently have it installed already.  I have added a small sentence for that now, but let me know if I should mention this in the conclusion instead though. }
 
 %%% Local Variables:
 %%% mode: latex