You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I was playing around to synthesize syrk and syr2k kernels with scaleHLS, and I discovered that the test_syrk.c and test_syr2k.c files contain a different implementation that the one of the official polybench kernels (see here and here). What is the reason for that?
When I used the "official" implementation, moreover, kernels optimized by scaleHLS resulted in worse performance than the baseline (sizes 2 to 8) or got stuck for days in the loop space exploration (size 16). How did you manage the size 4096 that is reported in the paper?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @SerenaC94, thanks for poking me on this. All the experimental results reported in the paper are based on the kernels in our samples folder. The rewriting was intended to accommodate the prototype C/C++ front-end we developed about one year ago. And the samples haven't been updated since then. Currently we are reconstructing the samples folder to include all "official" benchmarks from polybench. Will have you posted once that's done.
Hi,
I was playing around to synthesize syrk and syr2k kernels with scaleHLS, and I discovered that the test_syrk.c and test_syr2k.c files contain a different implementation that the one of the official polybench kernels (see here and here). What is the reason for that?
When I used the "official" implementation, moreover, kernels optimized by scaleHLS resulted in worse performance than the baseline (sizes 2 to 8) or got stuck for days in the loop space exploration (size 16). How did you manage the size 4096 that is reported in the paper?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: