From a65bdc9ee527e66cf07dd0c4dea21ad342b141b6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Yann Herklotz <git@yannherklotz.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 20:26:34 +0100
Subject: Add changes

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

(limited to 'introduction.tex')

diff --git a/introduction.tex b/introduction.tex
index 146b33c..c96e795 100644
--- a/introduction.tex
+++ b/introduction.tex
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
 As latency, throughput and energy efficiency become increasingly important, custom hardware accelerators are being designed for numerous applications. 
 Alas, designing these accelerators can be a tedious and error-prone process using a hardware description language (HDL) such as Verilog.
 An attractive alternative is \emph{high-level synthesis} (HLS), in which hardware designs are automatically compiled from software written in a high-level language like C. 
-Modern HLS tools such as \legup{}~\cite{canis11_legup}, Vivado HLS~\cite{xilinx20_vivad_high_synth}, Intel i++~\cite{intel_hls}, and Bambu HLS~\cite{bambu_hls} promise designs with comparable performance and energy-efficiency to those hand-written in HDL~\cite{homsirikamol+14, silexicahlshdl, 7818341}, while offering the convenient abstractions and rich ecosystems of software development.
+Modern HLS tools such as \legup{}~\cite{canis11_legup}, Vivado HLS~\cite{xilinx20_vivad_high_synth}, Intel i++~\cite{intel_hls}, and Bambu HLS~\cite{bambu_hls} promise designs with comparable performance and energy-efficiency to those hand-written in an HDL~\cite{homsirikamol+14, silexicahlshdl, 7818341}, while offering the convenient abstractions and rich ecosystems of software development.
 But existing HLS tools cannot always guarantee that the hardware designs they produce are equivalent to the software they were given, and this undermines any reasoning conducted at the software level. 
 
 Indeed, there are reasons to doubt that HLS tools actually \emph{do} always preserve equivalence.
-- 
cgit 

