I think this result is not shocking in several respects :)
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @johnregehr @whitequark
Yeah, my reaction is "have you looked at obscure compilers in general?".
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
-
Replying to @whitequark @johnregehr
By the standards of HLS? No. But are any HLS tools actually particularly mainstream and subjected to similar amounts of testing as C compilers, for example? Also no. And we know how terrible C compilers are (and how much worse they were before fuzzing).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gsnedders @johnregehr
wait, why is HLS relevant here? a compiler is a compiler
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @whitequark @johnregehr
I mean I'd argue HLS tools are niche to start with?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gsnedders @johnregehr
the paper is about fuzzing Vivado with Verilog inputs. do we have a different definition of what constitutes "HLS" here?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @whitequark @johnregehr
Quite possibly. It may also just show how dated much of my resources looking at HLS were. :)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I think I know where the confusion is coming from: Xilinx "Vivado HLS" (formerly AutoESL "Autopilot") and Xilinx "Vivado" are different tools. They have nothing in common, except that Xilinx decided to use a similar name for weird marketing purposes. There is no HLS in Vivado.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.