-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
base: 17-calldata-gas-marshalling-reduce
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Vectors of vectors removed #34
Conversation
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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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] = |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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] = |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
Closes #29.