Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Vectors of vectors removed #34

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: 17-calldata-gas-marshalling-reduce
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

nkaskov
Copy link
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
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,
fri_params.modulus
);
z_offset = basic_marshalling.skip_vector_of_uint256_be(blob, z_offset);

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

fri_params.lpc_z,
fri_params.modulus
);
unchecked{ point_index++; }
}
fri_params.batched_V[polynom_index][0] =
Copy link
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
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