You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
FPGA vendors have recently started focusing on OpenCL for FPGAs because of its ability to leverage the parallelism inherent to heterogeneous computing platforms. OpenCL allows programs running on a host computer to launch accelerator kernels which can be compiled at run-time for a specific architecture, thus enabling portability. However, the prohibitive compilation times (specifically the FPGA place and route times) are a major stumbling block when using OpenCL tools from FPGA vendors. The long compilation times mean that the tools cannot effectively use just-in-time (JIT) compilation or runtime performance scaling. Coarse-grained overlays represent a possible solution by virtue of their coarse granularity and fast compilation. In this paper, we present a methodology for run-time compilation of OpenCL kernels to a DSP block based coarse-grained overlay, rather than directly to the fine-grained FPGA fabric. The proposed methodology allows JIT compilation and on-demand resource-aware kernel replication to better utilize available overlay resources, raising the abstraction level while reducing compile times significantly. We further demonstrate that this approach can even be used for run-time compilation of OpenCL kernels on the ARM processor of the embedded heterogeneous Zynq device.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: High-Level-Synthesis (HLS) tools translate a software description of an application into custom FPGA logic, increasing designer productivity vs. Hardware Description Language (HDL) design flows. Overlays seek to further improve productivity by reducing application compile times and raising abstraction by enabling the designer to target a software-programmable substrate instead of the underlying FPGA. We compare the performance, development effort and scalability of two C-to-FPGA approaches: our TILT overlay processor and Altera's OpenCL HLS. Our application-customized TILT implementations of five data-parallel benchmarks have from 41 to 80 of the throughput per unit of layout area achieved by our best OpenCL HLS designs. The time required for initial hardware compilation of these TILT designs and configuration of the target application onto the overlay is roughly comparable to the compile times of the OpenCL HLS designs: 28 and 103 minutes on average respectively. However subsequent reconfigurations due to changes in the application that do not require re-synthesis of the overlay are fast, taking 38 seconds on average. In contrast, OpenCL HLS applications require full recompilation after every code change. TILT also enables smaller, more area-efficient designs than OpenCL HLS when low to moderate throughput is sufficient. For high throughput, the larger spatially pipelined designs of OpenCL HLS are preferable.
OpenCL targeting the TILT overlay [1] was suggested as an alternative to the Altera OpenCL tool (which generates a heavily pipelined, spatial design which maximizes throughput at the cost of significant resource usage) when a lower throughput is adequate. TILT uses a weaker form of application customization by varying the mix of pre-configured standard FUs and optionally generating application-dependent custom units. However, as each application requires that the TILT overlay be recompiled, a hardware context switch (referred to as a kernel update in the paper) takes on average 38 seconds. Additionally, the Altera OpenCL HLS implementation of the benchmark application was 2 @math more efficient in terms of throughput per unit area.