From f174bdf0549201900baf5f910f2fb9d0d8b62e60 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: John Wickerson <j.wickerson@imperial.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 21:40:42 +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 3096d52..d134157 100644
--- a/conclusion.tex
+++ b/conclusion.tex
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 \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 an effort to find as many bugs in them as possible and report them to the tool vendors.  In total, we found at least 6 individual and unique bugs in all the tools, which have been reduced and analysed.  These consisted of crashes as well as generation of designs that did not behave in the same way as the original code.
+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 to find as many bugs in them as possible and report them to the tool vendors.  In total, we found at least 6 individual and unique bugs in all the tools, which have been reduced and analysed.  These consisted of crashes as well as generation of designs that did not behave in the same way as the original code.
 
 Further work could be done on supporting more HLS tools, especially ones that prove that the 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.
 
-- 
cgit 

