diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'algorithm.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | algorithm.tex | 2 |
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/algorithm.tex b/algorithm.tex index b731dfc..3c33757 100644 --- a/algorithm.tex +++ b/algorithm.tex @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ First of all, the choice of C as the input language of \vericert{} is simply bec %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. -We also considered using a language with built-in parallel constructs that map well to parallel hardware, such as occam~\cite{page91_compil_occam} or Spatial~\cite{spatial}, but found these languages too niche. +We also considered using a language with built-in parallel constructs that map well to parallel hardware, such as occam~\cite{page91_compil_occam}, Spatial~\cite{spatial} or Scala~\cite{chisel}, but we found these languages too niche. % However, this would not qualify as being HLS due to the manual parallelism that would have to be performed. \JW{I don't think the presence of parallelism stops it being proper HLS.} %\JP{I think I agree with Yann here, but it could be worded better. At any rate not many people have experience writing what is essentially syntactic sugar over a process calculus.} %\JW{I mean: there are plenty of software languages that involve parallel constructs. Anyway, perhaps we can just dismiss occam for being too obscure.} |