From e7fa1c8a8dbcf42c7f609a213bbd488fc8eb05bc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: John Wickerson <j.wickerson@imperial.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 09:39:07 +0000
Subject: Update on Overleaf.

---
 main.tex | 9 ++++++++-
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

(limited to 'main.tex')

diff --git a/main.tex b/main.tex
index ced45f4..3ac94aa 100644
--- a/main.tex
+++ b/main.tex
@@ -193,6 +193,13 @@ Therefore, work is being done to prove the equivalence between the generated har
 
 \subsection{HLS}
 
+\JW{Some papers to cite somewhere:
+\begin{itemize}
+    \item \citet{kundu+08} have done translation validation on an HLS tool called SPARK.
+    \item \citet{chapman+92} have proved (manually, as far as JW can tell) that the front-end and scheduler of the BEDROC synthesis system is correct. (NB: Chapman also wrote a PhD thesis about this (1994) but it doesn't appear to be online.)
+\end{itemize}
+}
+
 \section{Verilog Semantics}
 
 Definition of state.
@@ -209,7 +216,7 @@ based on what they evaluate to. For case I think that would end up being a three
 
 \JP{I suppose this would essentially be an ``interpreter'' style semantics but we can prove equivalence pretty easily.}
 
-\YH{To add to that, I used to have both in the Coq code, but commented the recursive definition out, and now only have the inductive definition, which is basically what I copy pasted here.} \JW{Fair enough. Whatever you think ends up being the easiest to read and understand, really. There's something to be said for staying close to the Coq definitions anyway.} \YH{I have added more rules, we can always switch from one to the other now.  One more thing I noticed though is that recursive definitions will need an \texttt{option} type.}
+\YH{To add to that, I used to have both in the Coq code, but commented the recursive definition out, and now only have the inductive definition, which is basically what I copy pasted here.} \JW{Fair enough. Whatever you think ends up being the easiest to read and understand, really. There's something to be said for staying close to the Coq definitions anyway.} \YH{I have added more rules, we can always switch from one to the other now.  One more thing I noticed though is that recursive definitions will need an \texttt{option} type.} \JW{Oh, then my suggestion of `stmntrun f s0 (Vseq st1 st2) = stmntrun f (stmntrun f s0 st1) st2' is a bit ill-typed then, unless the second parameter becomes option-typed too. Maybe the inference rules are better overall then.}
 
 \begin{align}
     \text{srun}\ f\ s\ \mathtt{Vskip} &= \mathtt{Some}\ s\\
-- 
cgit 

