High-level synthesis with LegUp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-level synthesis (HLS) has been gaining traction recently as a design methodology for FPGAs, with the promise of raising the productivity of FPGA hardware designers, and ultimately, opening the door to the use of FPGAs as computing devices targetable by software engineers. In this tutorial, we introduce LegUp, an open-source HLS tool for FPGAs developed at the University of Toronto. With LegUp, a user can compile a C program completely to hardware, or alternately, he/she can choose to compile the program to a hybrid hardware/software system comprising a processor along with one or more accelerators. LegUp supports the synthesis of most of the C language to hardware, including loops, structs, multi-dimensional arrays, pointer arithmetic, and floating point operations. The LegUp distribution includes the CHStone HLS benchmark suite, as well as a test suite and associated infrastructure for measuring quality of results, and for verifying the functionality of LegUp-generated circuits. LegUp is freely downloadable at www.legup.org, providing a powerful platform that can be leveraged for new high-level synthesis research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.014 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".