From c1f4f21fff5ae7abc9563d6083e7bfbc60332830 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: John Wickerson <j.wickerson@imperial.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 21:42:36 +0000
Subject: Update on Overleaf.

---
 conclusion.tex | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

(limited to 'conclusion.tex')

diff --git a/conclusion.tex b/conclusion.tex
index 64e77e2..ab9b212 100644
--- a/conclusion.tex
+++ b/conclusion.tex
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 \section{Conclusion}
 We have shown how existing fuzzing tools can be modified so that their outputs are compatible with HLS tools.  We have used this testing framework to run 10,000 test cases \JW{check numbers} through three different HLS tools. In total, we found at least 6 individual and unique bugs in all the tools, which have been reduced, analysed, and reported to the tool vendors.  These bugs include crashes as well as instances of generated designs not behaving in the same way as the original code.
 
-Further work could be done on supporting more HLS tools, especially ones that claim to prove that their output is correct before terminating.  This could give an indication on how effective these proofs are, and how  many times they cannot prove the output equivalent.
+Further work could be done on supporting more HLS tools, especially ones that claim to prove that their output is correct before terminating.  This could give an indication on how effective these proofs are, and how often they are actu many times they cannot prove the output equivalent.
 
 As HLS is becoming increasingly useful, it is important to make sure that these tools are also reliable.  We hope that this work further motivates the design of correct HLS tools, either by validating that the output is correct or by proving the HLS tool correct.
 
-- 
cgit 

