MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345908052 · doi:10.1109/tcad.2016.2565204

Signal-Tracing Techniques for In-System FPGA Debugging of High-Level Synthesis Circuits

2016· article· en· W2345908052 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeffrey Goeders, Steven J. E. Wilton

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVLSI and Analog Circuit Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDebuggingTracingField-programmable gate arrayComputer scienceSIGNAL (programming language)Electronic circuitEmbedded systemComputer hardwareProgramming languageEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-level synthesis (HLS) promises to increase designer productivity in the face of increasing field-programmable gate array sizes, and broaden the market of use, allowing software designers to reap the benefits of hardware implementation. One roadblock to HLS adoption is the lack of an in-system debugging infrastructure. Although designers can run their software code on a workstation, or simulate the register-transfer level, neither can reliably capture the behaviors, and therefore bugs, that may be present in the final system. Debugging hardware circuits in-system requires using signal-tracing to record circuit behavior for later offline analysis. In this paper, we present a debugging architecture, which automatically records key hardware signals, and relates them back to the original software source code. This architecture allows designers to debug HLS circuits in-system, in the context of the original source code. We present several signal-tracing techniques, tailored to HLS circuits, which allow a much longer execution trace to be captured. These techniques include signal compression, dynamically changing which signals are recorded cycle-by-cycle, and offline signal restoration. Compared to using an embedded logic analyzer to perform signal-tracing, our architecture increases the length of execution trace that can be recorded by 127X. For each 100 Kb of trace buffer memory, our architecture can record 15 369 executed lines of C code.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and SystemsSame topicVLSI and Analog Circuit TestingFrench-language works237,207