Skip to content

Vectors of vectors removed#34

Draft
nkaskov wants to merge 4 commits into
17-calldata-gas-marshalling-reducefrom
29-remove-vectors-of-vectors
Draft

Vectors of vectors removed#34
nkaskov wants to merge 4 commits into
17-calldata-gas-marshalling-reducefrom
29-remove-vectors-of-vectors

Conversation

@nkaskov
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@nkaskov nkaskov commented Feb 15, 2023

Closes #29.

@nemothenoone nemothenoone requested review from SK0M0R0H and removed request for SK0M0R0H March 22, 2023 06:06
uint256 []memory xi
) internal view returns(bool b){
uint256[7] memory precomputed = commitment_calc.eval2_precompute(fri_params.tmp_arr[0], xi[0], xi[1], fri_params.modulus);
uint256 [4]memory xi
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are we sure that this always will be 4? Maybe, it makes sense to set a constant for this

);
z_offset = basic_marshalling.skip_vector_of_uint256_be(blob, z_offset);

fri_params.batched_U[polynom_index][0] =
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it possible that eval4[0] < 1? Because this one will be re-set again in the next loop

);
unchecked{ point_index++; }
}
fri_params.batched_V[polynom_index][0] =
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The same question about size of eval4[0]

if (!batched_lpc_verifier.parse_verify_proof_be(blob, proof_map.eval_proof_permutation_offset,
local_vars.evaluation_points, tr_state, fri_params)) {
// require(false, "Wrong permutation LPC proof");
require(false, "Wrong permutation LPC proof");
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In my understanding, we don't need require here because we return false. It's up to the caller check if it's true or false. However, it's not clear how to return the reason of "false" in this case

@nkaskov nkaskov marked this pull request as draft August 9, 2023 11:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants