From 5811afdf0133dc45fbde5c9d444e690afd8dc27d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Yann Herklotz Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:58:50 +0100 Subject: test cases to test-cases --- introduction.tex | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/introduction.tex b/introduction.tex index 65b0bfc..4e5e511 100644 --- a/introduction.tex +++ b/introduction.tex @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ Indeed, there are reasons to doubt that HLS tools actually \emph{do} always pres %Other reasons are more specific: For instance, Vivado HLS has been shown to apply pipelining optimisations incorrectly\footnote{\url{https://bit.ly/vivado-hls-pipeline-bug}} or to silently generate wrong code should the programmer stray outside the fragment of C that it supports.\footnote{\url{https://bit.ly/vivado-hls-pointer-bug}} Meanwhile, \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, \citet{herklotz21_empir_study_reliab_high_level_synth_tools} 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 were compiled to designs that behaved incorrectly. %\NR{The word `input' here made me think of I/Os. `input software' or just `software' is better. I think it is worth being consistent across the article on the word used to describe the software description provided to the HLS tool. Actually, we can even signpost it like: `From here on we used the word bla to refer to the input software that is provided to an HLS tool.'} %JW: thanks, done. +More recently, \citet{herklotz21_empir_study_reliab_high_level_synth_tools} 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 were compiled to designs that behaved incorrectly. %\NR{The word `input' here made me think of I/Os. `input software' or just `software' is better. I think it is worth being consistent across the article on the word used to describe the software description provided to the HLS tool. Actually, we can even signpost it like: `From here on we used the word bla to refer to the input software that is provided to an HLS tool.'} %JW: thanks, done. \paragraph{Existing workarounds} -- cgit