\frametitle{Synthesized Output}
\vspace{-0.8em}
\begin{figure}
- \centerline{\includegraphics[width=\paperwidth,trim=9mm 4cm 14mm 4cm, clip=true]{fir0.png}}
+ \centerline{\includegraphics[width=\paperwidth,trim=9mm 14cm 14mm 16cm, clip=true]{fir0.png}}
\end{figure}
\end{frame}
\frametitle{Synthesized Output}
\vspace{-0.8em}
\begin{figure}
- \centerline{\includegraphics[width=\paperwidth,trim=9mm 4cm 16.5cm 4cm, clip=true]{fir1.png}}
+ \centerline{\includegraphics[width=\paperwidth,trim=9mm 15cm 16.5cm 11cm, clip=true]{fir1.png}}
\end{figure}
\end{frame}
\frametitle{Synthesized Output}
\vspace{-0.8em}
\begin{figure}
- \centerline{\includegraphics[width=\paperwidth,trim=3cm 4cm 4cm 4cm, clip=true]{fir2.png}}
+ \centerline{\includegraphics[width=\paperwidth,trim=3cm 13cm 4cm 11cm, clip=true]{fir2.png}}
\end{figure}
\end{frame}
\ No newline at end of file
\frame{
\frametitle{Too Restrictive?}
\begin{itemize}
- \item Is CλasH too restrictive given the fact that a designer can currently not define his own vector transformations, or recursive functions for that matter?
+ \item Is \clash{} too restrictive given the fact that a designer can currently not define his own vector transformations, or recursive functions for that matter?
\end{itemize}
}
\frame{
\frametitle{Too Restrictive?}
\begin{itemize}
- \item There is certainly room to increase expressivity. But we can already describe non-trivial design in CλasH.
+ \item There is certainly room to increase expressivity. But we can already describe non-trivial design in \clash{}.
\item Example: Reduction circuit
\end{itemize}
}