From 5000737a898c4083c9b7c844ffc3abf964fc5bdb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Yann Herklotz <git@yannherklotz.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:13:03 +0100
Subject: Update intro

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

(limited to 'intro.tex')

diff --git a/intro.tex b/intro.tex
index 44d0b1c..990a241 100644
--- a/intro.tex
+++ b/intro.tex
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ This paper reports on our campaign to test HLS tools by fuzzing.
     
     \item We give these programs to three widely used HLS tools: Xilinx Vivado HLS~\cite{xilinx20_vivad_high_synth}, LegUp HLS~\cite{canis13_legup} and the Intel HLS Compiler, which is also known as i++~\cite{intel20_sdk_openc_applic}. When we find a program that causes an HLS tool to crash, or to generate hardware that produces a different result from GCC, we reduce it to a minimal example with the help of the \creduce{} tool~\cite{creduce}.
     
-    \item Our testing campaign revealed that all three tools could be made to crash while compiling or to generate wrong RTL. In total, we found 6 bugs across the three tools.
+    \item Our testing campaign revealed that all three tools could be made to crash while compiling or to generate wrong RTL.  In total, 6700 test cases were run through each tool out of which 272 test cases failed in at least one of the tools.  Test case reduction was then performed on some of these failing test cases to obtain at least 6 unique failing test cases.
     
     \item To investigate whether HLS tools are getting more or less reliable over time, we also tested three different versions of Vivado HLS (2018.3, 2019.1, and 2019.2).  We found that in general there about half as many failures in versions 2019.1 and 2019.2 compared to 2018.3.  However, there were also test-cases that only failed in versions 2019.1 and 2019.2, meaning bugs were probably introduced due to the addition of new features.
 \end{itemize}
-- 
cgit 

