Update on Overleaf.

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/introduction.tex b/introduction.tex
index 9f9903a..d753bae 100644
--- a/introduction.tex
+++ b/introduction.tex
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ This undermines any reasoning conducted at the software level.
 And there are reasons to doubt that HLS tools actually \emph{do} preserve equivalence. First, just like conventional compilers, HLS tools are large pieces of software that perform a series of complex analyses and transformations. 
 Second, unlike conventional compilers, HLS tools target HDL, which has superficial syntactic similarities to software languages but a subtly different semantics, making it easy to introduce behavioural mismatches between the output of the HLS tool and its input.
 %Hence, the premise of this work is: Can we trust these compilers to translate high-level languages like C/C++ to HDL correctly? 
-These doubts have been realised by 
+\JW{These doubts have been shown to be justified by... / These doubts have been borne out by... }
 For instance, \citet{lidbury15_many_core_compil_fuzzin} had to abandon their attempt to fuzz-test Altera's (now Intel's) OpenCL compiler since it ``either crashed or emitted an internal compiler error'' on so many of their test inputs.  
 More recently, Du et al.~\cite{du+20} fuzz-tested three commercial HLS tools using Csmith~\cite{yang11_findin_under_bugs_c_compil}, and despite restricting the generated programs to the C fragment explicitly supported by all the tools, they still found that on average 2.5\% of test cases generated a design that did not match the behaviour of the input.  
 %