Update on Overleaf.

1 files changed, 22 insertions, 24 deletions

diff --git a/algorithm.tex b/algorithm.tex
index 302494f..1d79eee 100644
--- a/algorithm.tex
+++ b/algorithm.tex
@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
 \section{Designing a verified HLS tool}
 \label{sec:design}
 
-This section covers \JP{describes} the main architecture of the HLS tool, and the way in which the Verilog back end \JP{back-end? backend?} was added to \compcert{}.  This section will also cover an example of converting a simple C program into hardware, expressed in the Verilog language.
+This section describes the main architecture of the HLS tool, and the way in which the Verilog back end \JP{back-end? backend?}\YH{I actually always used back end} was added to \compcert{}.  This section will also cover an example of converting a simple C program into hardware, expressed in the Verilog language.
 
 \paragraph{Choice of source language}
-First of all, the choice of C as the input language of \vericert{} is simply because it is what most major HLS tools use~\cite{canis11_legup, xilinx20_vivad_high_synth, intel_hls, bambu_hls}. This, in turn, may be because C is ``[t]he starting point for the vast majority of algorithms to be implemented in hardware''~\cite{5522874}.  \JP{I think this could be reworded: ``C was chosen as the source language as it remains the most common source language amongst production-quality HLS tools~\cite{canis11_legup, xilinx20_vivad_high_synth, intel_hls, bambu_hls}. This, in turn, may be because it is ``[t]he starting point for the vast majority of algorithms to be implemented in hardware''~\cite{5522874}, lending a degree of practicality. The availability of \compcert{} [cite] also provides a solid basis for formally verified C compilation.''}
+C was chosen as the source language as it remains the most common source language amongst production-quality HLS tools~\cite{canis11_legup, xilinx20_vivad_high_synth, intel_hls, bambu_hls}. This, in turn, may be because it is ``[t]he starting point for the vast majority of algorithms to be implemented in hardware''~\cite{5522874}, lending a degree of practicality. The availability of \compcert{}~\cite{??} also provides a solid basis for formally verified C compilation.
 %Since a lot of existing code for HLS is written in C, supporting C as an input language, rather than a custom domain-specific language, means that \vericert{} is more practical. 
 %An alternative was to support LLVM IR as an input language, however, to get a full work flow from a higher level language to hardware, a front end for that language to LLVM IR would also have to be verified. \JW{Maybe save LLVM for the `Choice of implementation language'?}
 We considered Bluespec~\cite{nikhil04_blues_system_veril}, but decided that although it ``can be classed as a high-level language''~\cite{greaves_note}, it is too hardware-oriented to be used for traditional HLS.
@@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ We also considered using a language with built-in parallel constructs that map w
 
 
 \paragraph{Choice of target language}
-Verilog~\cite{06_ieee_stand_veril_hardw_descr_languag} is an HDL that can be synthesised into logic cells which can be either placed onto a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) or turned into an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC).  Verilog was chosen as the output language for \vericert{} because it is one of the most popular HDLs and there already exist a few formal semantics for it that could be used as a target~\cite{loow19_verif_compil_verif_proces, meredith10_veril}. \JP{We've just mentioned Bluespec as a \textit{source} language and now we're saying it could be a target language: this is fine but needs comment.} \JP{``Bluespec, previously ruled out as a source language, is another possible target and there exists a formally verified translation to circuits using K\^{o}ika~\cite{bourgeat20_essen_blues}.''} Other possible targets could have been Bluespec, from which there exists a formally verified translation to circuits using K\^{o}ika~\cite{bourgeat20_essen_blues}. \JP{This needs an extra comment maybe?} % but targeting this language would not be trivial as it is not meant to be targeted by an automatic tool, instead strives to a formally verified high-level hardware description language instead. 
+Verilog~\cite{06_ieee_stand_veril_hardw_descr_languag} is an HDL that can be synthesised into logic cells which can be either placed onto a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) or turned into an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC).  Verilog was chosen as the output language for \vericert{} because it is one of the most popular HDLs and there already exist a few formal semantics for it that could be used as a target~\cite{loow19_verif_compil_verif_proces, meredith10_veril}.  Bluespec, previously ruled out as a source language, is another possible target and there exists a formally verified translation to circuits using K\^{o}ika~\cite{bourgeat20_essen_blues}. \JP{This needs an extra comment maybe?}\YH{Maybe about bluespec not being an ideal target language because it's quite high-level?} % but targeting this language would not be trivial as it is not meant to be targeted by an automatic tool, instead strives to a formally verified high-level hardware description language instead. 
 
 %\JW{Can we mention one or two alternatives that we considered? Bluespec or Chisel or one of Adam Chlipala's languages, perhaps?}
 
 \paragraph{Choice of implementation language}
 We chose Coq as the implementation language because of its mature support for code extraction; that is, its ability to generate OCaml programs directly from the definitions used in the theorems.
 We note that other authors have had some success reasoning about the HLS process using other theorem provers such as Isabelle~\cite{ellis08}.
-The framework that was chosen for the front end was \compcert{} \JP{``\compcert{} was chosen as the front end framework''}\JP{But careful if we've already mentioned this before. Also needs a citation?}, as it is a mature framework for simulation proofs about intermediate languages, and it already provides a validated C parser~\cite{jourdan12_valid_lr_parser}.
+\compcert{} was chosen as the front end framework\JP{But careful if we've already mentioned this before. Also needs a citation?}\YH{Citation for compcert?}, as it is a mature framework for simulation proofs about intermediate languages, and it already provides a validated C parser~\cite{jourdan12_valid_lr_parser}.
 The Vellvm~\cite{zhao12_formal_llvm_inter_repres_verif_progr_trans} framework was also considered because several existing HLS tools are already LLVM-based, but additional work would be required to support a high-level language like C as input.
 The .NET framework has been used as a basis for other HLS tools, such as Kiwi~\cite{kiwi}, and LLHD~\cite{schuiki20_llhd} has been recently proposed as an intermediate language for hardware design, but neither are suitable for us because they lack formal semantics.
 
@@ -59,13 +59,13 @@ The .NET framework has been used as a basis for other HLS tools, such as Kiwi~\c
 \end{figure}
 
 \paragraph{Architecture of \vericert{}}
-The main work flow of \vericert{} is given in Figure~\ref{fig:rtlbranch}, which shows those parts of the translation that are performed in \compcert{}, and those which \JP{that?..} have been added.
+The main work flow of \vericert{} is given in Figure~\ref{fig:rtlbranch}, which shows those parts of the translation that are performed in \compcert{}, and those that have been added.
 
-\compcert{} translates Clight input into assembly output via a sequence of intermediate languages; we must decide which of these eleven languages \JP{I can only count 9 in total (including CompCert C and Asm) now that I look at the docs; I remember having this issue before...} is the most suitable starting point to begin the HLS-specific translation stages. \JP{Should we say what Clight is here? (i.e. deterministic C with pure expressions)} \JW{Yeah maybe a footnote?}
+\compcert{} translates Clight\footnote{A deterministic subset of C with pure expressions.} input into assembly output via a sequence of intermediate languages; we must decide which of these eleven languages \JP{I can only count 9 in total (including CompCert C and Asm) now that I look at the docs; I remember having this issue before...}\YH{I thought we discussed it and found 11, but I count 10 now....: Clight, C\#minor, Cminor, CminorSel, RTL, LTL, LTLin, Linear, Mach, PPC (ASM)} is the most suitable starting point to begin the HLS-specific translation stages. \JP{Should we say what Clight is here? (i.e. deterministic C with pure expressions)} \JW{Yeah maybe a footnote?}\YH{Added}
 
-We select CompCert's three-address code (3AC)\footnote{This is known as register transfer language (RTL) in the \compcert{} literature. `3AC' is used in this paper instead to avoid confusion with register-transfer level (RTL), which is another name for the final hardware target of the HLS tool.} as the starting point. Branching off before this point (at CminorSel or earlier) denies \compcert{} the opportunity to perform optimisations such as constant propagation and dead code elimination, which have been found useful in HLS tools as well as software compilers~\cite{cong+11}. And if we branch off after this point (at LTL or later) then CompCert has already performed register allocation to reduce the number of registers and spill some variables to the stack; this transformation is not required in HLS because there are many more registers available, and these should be used instead of RAM whenever possible. \JP{``\compcert{} performs register allocation during the translation to LTL, with some registers spilled onto the stack: this is unnecessary in HLS since as many registers as are required may be described in the output RTL.''} \JP{Maybe something about FPGAs being register-dense (so rarely a need to worry about the number of flops)?}
+We select CompCert's three-address code (3AC)\footnote{This is known as register transfer language (RTL) in the \compcert{} literature. `3AC' is used in this paper instead to avoid confusion with register-transfer level (RTL), which is another name for the final hardware target of the HLS tool.} as the starting point. Branching off before this point (at CminorSel or earlier) denies \compcert{} the opportunity to perform optimisations such as constant propagation and dead code elimination, which have been found useful in HLS tools as well as software compilers~\cite{cong+11}. And if we branch off after this point (at LTL or later) then \compcert{} has already performed register allocation to reduce the number of registers and spill some variables to the stack; this transformation is not required in HLS because there are many more registers available, and these should be used instead of RAM whenever possible. \JP{``\compcert{} performs register allocation during the translation to LTL, with some registers spilled onto the stack: this is unnecessary in HLS since as many registers as are required may be described in the output RTL.''} \JP{Maybe something about FPGAs being register-dense (so rarely a need to worry about the number of flops)?}
 
-3AC is also attractive because it is the closest intermediate language to LLVM IR, which is used by several existing HLS compilers \JP{We already ruled out LLVM as a starting point, so this seems like it needs further qualification.}. It has an unlimited number of pseudo-registers, and is represented as a control flow graph (CFG) where each instruction is a node with links to the instructions that can follow it. One difference between LLVM IR and 3AC is that 3AC includes operations that are specific to the chosen target architecture; we chose x86\_32 because each instruction maps well to hardware.\JP{I'm still not convinced: all instructions map well to hardware (in theory) because they're all implemented on real processors, even if they require micro-ops or multiple cycles. How about ``Targeting x86\_32 generally produces relatively dense RTL thanks to the availability of more complex addressing modes, reducing cycle counts when the HLS tool uses a naive scheduling approach'' or something like that?} 
+3AC is also attractive because it is the closest intermediate language to LLVM IR, which is used by several existing HLS compilers \JP{We already ruled out LLVM as a starting point, so this seems like it needs further qualification.}\YH{Well not because it's not a good starting point, but the ecosystem in Coq isn't as good.  I think it's still OK here to say that being similar to LLVM IR is an advantage?}. It has an unlimited number of pseudo-registers, and is represented as a control flow graph (CFG) where each instruction is a node with links to the instructions that can follow it. One difference between LLVM IR and 3AC is that 3AC includes operations that are specific to the chosen target architecture; we chose to target the x86\_32 backend, because it generally produces relatively dense 3AC thanks to the availability of more complex addressing modes, reducing cycle counts when the HLS tool uses a na\"{i}ve scheduling approach.
 
 \begin{figure}
   \centering
@@ -179,13 +179,12 @@ endmodule
 
 \subsection{Translating C to Verilog, by example}
 Figure~\ref{fig:accumulator_c_rtl} illustrates the translation of a program that sums the elements of an array.
-In this section we describe the stages of the \vericert{} translation process using this program as an example.
+In this section, we describe the stages of the \vericert{} translation, referring to this program as an example.
 
 \subsubsection{Translating C to 3AC}
 
 The first stage of the translation uses unmodified \compcert{} to transform the C input, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:accumulator_c}, into a 3AC intermediate representation, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:accumulator_rtl}.
-
-As part of this translation, \compcert{} performs such optimisations as constant propagation and dead-code elimination.\JP{We already wrote about this, remove?}  Function inlining is also performed, which allows us to support function calls without having to support the \texttt{Icall} 3AC instruction.  Although the duplication of the function bodies caused by inlining can increase the area of the hardware, it can have a positive effect on latency. Moreover, inlining excludes support for recursive function calls, but this feature isn't supported in most other HLS tools either~\cite{davidthomas_asap16}.
+As part of this translation, function inlining is also performed on all functions, which allows us to support function calls without having to support the \texttt{Icall} 3AC instruction.  Although the duplication of the function bodies caused by inlining can increase the area of the hardware, it can have a positive effect on latency. Moreover, inlining excludes support for recursive function calls, but this feature isn't supported in most other HLS tools either~\cite{davidthomas_asap16}.
 
 %\JW{Is that definitely true? Was discussing this with Nadesh and George recently, and I ended up not being so sure. Inlining could actually lead to \emph{reduced} resource usage because once everything has been inlined, the (big) scheduling problem could then be solved quite optimally. Certainly inlining is known to increase register pressure, but that's not really an issue here. If we're  not sure, we could just say that inlining everything leads to bloated Verilog files and the inability to support recursion, and leave it at that.}\YH{I think that is true, just because we don't do scheduling.  With scheduling I think that's true, inlining actually becomes quite good.}
 
@@ -200,9 +199,9 @@ As part of this translation, \compcert{} performs such optimisations as constant
 %\JW{I think it would be worth having a sentence to explain how the C model of memory is translated to a hardware-centric model of memory. For instance, in C we have global variables/arrays, stack-allocated variables/arrays, and heap-allocated variables/arrays (anything else?). In Verilog we have registers and RAM blocks. So what's the correspondence between the two worlds? Globals and heap-allocated are not handled, stack-allocated variables become registers, and stack-allocated arrays become RAM blocks? Am I close?}\YH{Stack allocated variables become RAM as well, so that we can deal with addresses easily and take addresses of any variable.} \JW{I see, thanks. So, in short, the only registers in your hardware designs are those that store things like the current state, etc. You generate a fixed number of registers every time you synthesis -- you don't generate extra registers to store any of the program variables. Right?}
 
 The next translation is from 3AC to a new hardware translation language (HTL). %, which is one step towards being completely translated to hardware described in Verilog.
-This involves going from a CFG representation of the computation to a finite state machine with datapath (FSMD) representation~\cite{hwang99_fsmd}. The core idea of the FSMD representation is that it separates the control flow from the operations on the memory and registers. \JP{I've become less comfortable with this term, but it's personal preference so feel free to ignore. I think `generalised finite state machine' (i.e.\ thinking of the entire `datapath' as contributing to the overall state) is more accurate.}
+This involves going from a CFG representation of the computation to a finite state machine with datapath (FSMD) representation~\cite{hwang99_fsmd}. The core idea of the FSMD representation is that it separates the control flow from the operations on the memory and registers. \JP{I've become less comfortable with this term, but it's personal preference so feel free to ignore. I think `generalised finite state machine' (i.e.\ thinking of the entire `datapath' as contributing to the overall state) is more accurate.}\YH{Hmm, yes, I mainly chose FSMD because there is quite a lot of literature around it.  I think for now I'll keep it but for the final draft we could maybe change it.}
 %This means that the state transitions can be translated into a simple finite state machine (FSM) where each state contains data operations that update the memory and registers. 
-Hence, an HTL program thus consists of two maps: control and datapath maps that express state transitions and computations respectively. \JP{Hence + thus in same sentence referring to the exact same implication.}
+Hence, an HTL program consists of two maps: control and datapath maps that express state transitions and computations respectively.
 Figure~\ref{fig:accumulator_diagram} shows the resulting FSMD architecture. The right block is the control logic that computes the next state whereas the left block updates all the registers and RAM based on the current program state. 
 
 \begin{figure*}
@@ -293,25 +292,26 @@ Figure~\ref{fig:accumulator_diagram} shows the resulting FSMD architecture. The
   \caption{The FSMD for the example shown in Figure~\ref{fig:accumulator_c_rtl}, split into a data path and control logic for the next state calculation.  The Update block takes the current state, current values of all registers and at most one value stored in the array, and calculates a new value that can either be stored back in the array or in a register.}\label{fig:accumulator_diagram}
 \end{figure*}
 
+%\JP{Does it? Verilog has neither physical registers nor RAMs, just language constructs which the synthesiser might implement with registers and RAMs. We should be clear whether we're talking about the HDL representation, or the synthesised result: in our case these can be very different since we don't target any specific architectural features of an FPGA fabric of ASIC process.}
 \paragraph{Translating memory}
-Typically, HLS-generated hardware consists of a sea of registers and RAM memories. \JP{Does it? Verilog has neither physical registers nor RAMs, just language constructs which the synthesiser might implement with registers and RAMs. We should be clear whether we're talking about the HDL representation, or the synthesised result: in our case these can be very different since we don't target any specific architectural features of an FPGA fabric of ASIC process.}
+Typically, HLS-generated hardware consists of a sea of registers and RAM memories. 
 This memory view is very different to the C memory model, so we perform the following translation. 
-Variables that do not have their address taken are kept in registers. \JP{CompCert does this for us.}
+Variables that do not have their address taken are kept in registers, which correspond to the registers in 3AC.
 All address-taken variables, arrays or structs are kept in RAM.
-The stack of the main function becomes a block of RAM, \JW{check this -- maybe change to 2D array of registers?} \JP{Agree, we describe an unpacked array of 32-bit vectors: the synthesiser might turn this into some kind of RAM, but this isn't guaranteed at all, and I think we found that the synthesis flow we used for evaluation put everything in registers?} as seen in Figure~\ref{fig:accumulator_diagram}. 
+The stack of the main function becomes an unpacked array of 32-bit integers, which may be translated to a RAM when the hardware description is passed through a synthesis tool.  A high-level overview of the architecture can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:accumulator_diagram}. 
 Finally, global variables are not translated in \vericert{} at the moment.
 
 \paragraph{Translating instructions}
-Each 3AC instruction either corresponds to a hardware construct, or does not have to be handled by the translation, such as function calls. \JP{Confusing: we never generate function calls due to inlining. We should be clear that this is because CompCert will never actually codegen a call: if it did, we would have to handle it (or more likely error out).}
+Each 3AC instruction either corresponds to a hardware construct, or does not have to be handled by the translation, such as function calls, as a call instruction will never be generated due to inlining all calls.
 For example, state 15 in Figure~\ref{fig:accumulator_rtl} shows a 32-bit register \texttt{x8} being initialised to 1, after which the control flow moves to state 14. This initialisation is also encoded in HTL at state 15 in both the control and datapath always blocks, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:accumulator_v}.  Simple operator instructions are translated in a similar way.  For example, in state 5, the value of the array element is added to the current sum value, which is simply translated to an addition of the equivalent registers in the HTL code.
 
-\paragraph{Key challenge: signedness} Note that the comparison in state 3 is signed. This is because C and Verilog handle signedness quite differently. By default, all operators and registers in Verilog (and HTL) are unsigned, so to force an operation to handle the bits as signed, both operators have to be forced to be signed.  In addition to that, Verilog resizes expressions to the largest needed size by default, which can affect the result of the computation.  This feature is also not supported by the Verilog semantics we adopted, and there would therefore be a mismatch between the Verilog semantics and the actual behaviour of Verilog according to the standard.  To bypass this issue, braces are used to stop the Verilog simulator or synthesis tool from resizing anything inside the braces.  Instead, explicit resizing is used in the semantics and operations can only be performed on two registers that
-have the same size. \JP{I feel like this is an issue of syntax? We embed a simplified syntax in Coq which elides braces etc. There isn't really a semantic mismatch (which sounds really scary and wrong).}
+\paragraph{Key challenge: signedness} Note that the comparison in state 3 is signed. C and Verilog handle signedness quite differently, by default, all operators and registers in Verilog (and HTL) are unsigned, so to force an operation to handle the bits as signed, both operators have to be forced to be signed.  In addition to that, Verilog implicitly resizes expressions to the largest needed size by default, which can affect the result of the computation.  This feature is not supported by the Verilog semantics we adopted, and therefore, to match the semantics to the behaviour of the simulator and synthesis tool, braces are placed around all expressions as this hinders implicit resizing.  Instead, explicit resizing is used in the semantics and operations can only be performed on two registers that
+have the same size. %\JP{I feel like this is an issue of syntax? We embed a simplified syntax in Coq which elides braces etc. There isn't really a semantic mismatch (which sounds really scary and wrong).}
 
 \subsubsection{Translating HTL to Verilog}
 
 Finally, we have to translate the HTL code into proper Verilog, % and prove that it behaves the same as the 3AC according to the Verilog semantics.
-where HTL is a language that is specifically designed to represent the FSMDs we are interested in and Verilog is a general-purpose HDL.\@  So the challenge here is to translate our FSMD representation into a Verilog AST.\JP{We've already introduced both of these languages.}  However, as all the instructions are already expressed in Verilog, only the maps need to be translated to valid Verilog, and correct declarations for all the variables in the program need to be added as well.
+The challenge here is to translate our FSMD representation into a Verilog AST.  However, as all the instructions in HTL are already expressed as Verilog statements, only the top level data path and control logic maps need to be translated to valid Verilog.  To generate correct Verilog, declarations for all the variables in the program need to be added as well.
 
 Although this translation seems quite straightforward, proving that this translation is correct is complex. 
 All the implicit assumptions that were made in HTL need to be translated explicitly to Verilog statements and it needs to be shown that these explicit behaviours are equivalent to the assumptions made in the HTL semantics.
@@ -323,13 +323,11 @@ Other additions are the initialisation of all the variables in the code to the c
 
 \subsection{Optimisations}
 
-Although we would not claim that \vericert{} is a proper `optimising' HLS compiler yet, we have nonetheless implemented a few optimisations that aim to improve the quality of the hardware designs it produces. \JP{I think saying `optimisations' in a PLDI paper implies something else? Perhaps ``..we have nonetheless made several design choices that aim..''}
+Although we would not claim that \vericert{} is a proper `optimising' HLS compiler yet, we have nonetheless made several design choices that aim to improve the quality of the hardware designs it produces.
 
 \subsubsection{Byte- and word-addressable memories}
 
-\JP{``Although Verilog arrays might seem to mirror their C counterparts directly, they must be treated quite differently. To reduce the design area and avoid issues meeting timing, it is beneficial if Verilog arrays can be synthesised as RAMs, but this imposes various constraints on how Verilog arrays are used. RAMs often only allow one read and one write operation per clock cycle: to make loads and stores as efficient as possible, the RAM needs to be word-addressable, which means that an entire integer can be loaded or stored in one clock cycle.''}
-
-One big difference between C and Verilog is how memory is represented.  In hardware, efficient RAMs are not as available as in software, and need to be explicitly implemented by declaring arrays with specific properties.  A major limitation is that RAMs often only allow one read and one write per clock cycle. So, to make loads and stores as efficient as possible, the RAM needs to be word-addressable, which means that an entire integer can be loaded or stored in one clock cycle.
+One big difference between C and Verilog is how memory is represented.  Although Verilog arrays might seem to mirror their C counterparts directly, they must be treated quite differently. To reduce the design area and avoid issues meeting timing, it is beneficial if Verilog arrays can be synthesised as RAMs, but this imposes various constraints on how Verilog arrays are used. RAMs often only allow one read and one write operation per clock cycle: to make loads and stores as efficient as possible, the RAM needs to be word-addressable, which means that an entire integer can be loaded or stored in one clock cycle.
 However, the memory model that \compcert{} uses for its intermediate languages is byte-addre\-ssa\-ble~\cite{blazy05_formal_verif_memor_model_c}.  It therefore has to be proven that the byte-addressable memory behaves in the same way as the word-addressable memory in hardware.  Any modifications of the bytes in the \compcert{} memory model also have to be shown to modify the word-addressable memory in the same way.  Since only integer loads and stores are currently supported in \vericert{}, it follows that the addresses given to the loads and stores should be multiples of four.  If that is the case, then the translation from byte-addressed memory to word-addressed memory can be done by dividing the address by four.
 
 \subsubsection{Implementing the \texttt{Oshrximm} instruction}