From 1a5e756c6002b03a6e70c88685263953c613c5f9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: John Wickerson <j.wickerson@imperial.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 14:29:55 +0000
Subject: Update on Overleaf.

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

(limited to 'introduction.tex')

diff --git a/introduction.tex b/introduction.tex
index 9e88564..e66ef7c 100644
--- a/introduction.tex
+++ b/introduction.tex
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ The contributions of this paper are as follows:
 \begin{itemize}
   \item We present \vericert{}, the first mechanically verified HLS tool that compiles C to Verilog. In Section~\ref{sec:design}, we describe the design of \vericert{}.
   \item We state the correctness theorem of \vericert{} with respect to an existing semantics for Verilog due to \citet{loow19_proof_trans_veril_devel_hol}. In Section~\ref{sec:verilog}, we describe how we lightly extended this semantics to make it suitable as an HLS target.
-  \item In Section~\ref{sec:proof}, we describe how we proved this theorem. The proof follows standard \compcert{} techniques -- forward simulations, intermediate specifications, and determinism results -- but we encountered several challenges peculiar to our hardware-oriented setting. These include handling discrepancies between byte- and word-addressable memories, different handling of unsigned comparisons between C and Verilog, and correctly mapping CompCert's memory model onto a finite Verilog array.
+  \item In Section~\ref{sec:proof}, we describe how we proved this theorem. The proof follows standard \compcert{} techniques -- forward simulations, intermediate specifications, and determinism results -- but we encountered several challenges peculiar to our hardware-oriented setting. These include handling discrepancies between byte- and word-addressable memories, different handling of unsigned comparisons between C and Verilog, and correctly mapping CompCert's memory model onto a finite Verilog array. 
   \item In Section~\ref{sec:evaluation}, we evaluate \vericert{} on the Polybench/C benchmark suite~\cite{polybench}, and compare the performance of our generated hardware against an existing, unverified HLS tool called \legup{}~\cite{canis11_legup}. We show that \vericert{} generates hardware that is \slowdownOrig$\times$ slower (\slowdownDiv$\times$ slower in the absence of division) and \areaIncr$\times$ larger than that generated by \legup{}. We intend to bridge this performance gap in the future by introducing (and verifying) HLS optimisations of our own, such as scheduling and memory analysis.
 \end{itemize}
 
-- 
cgit 

