-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 83
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
Added total_ and claimed_sums as formal variables in ExprEvaluator. #892
Conversation
e0bd224
to
388f168
Compare
29069bd
to
5884cb3
Compare
388f168
to
0036fae
Compare
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.
⚠️ Performance Alert ⚠️
Possible performance regression was detected for benchmark.
Benchmark result of this commit is worse than the previous benchmark result exceeding threshold 2
.
Benchmark suite | Current: e49c0a4 | Previous: cd8b37b | Ratio |
---|---|---|---|
iffts/simd ifft/22 |
12947109 ns/iter (± 265070 ) |
6306399 ns/iter (± 210024 ) |
2.05 |
merkle throughput/simd merkle |
30514622 ns/iter (± 269483 ) |
13712527 ns/iter (± 579195 ) |
2.23 |
This comment was automatically generated by workflow using github-action-benchmark.
CC: @shaharsamocha7
5884cb3
to
d998220
Compare
0036fae
to
8750fad
Compare
8750fad
to
229f7ab
Compare
1f7512f
to
ab4bb77
Compare
229f7ab
to
3fab82f
Compare
ab4bb77
to
a0c3a0d
Compare
794145d
to
7a94c0a
Compare
7a94c0a
to
57cde32
Compare
57cde32
to
159714d
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #892 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 91.95% 91.83% -0.13%
==========================================
Files 93 93
Lines 13097 13111 +14
Branches 13097 13111 +14
==========================================
- Hits 12043 12040 -3
- Misses 939 956 +17
Partials 115 115 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚨 Try these New Features:
|
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.
Reviewable status: 0 of 3 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Alon-Ti and @shaharsamocha7)
crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/expr.rs
line 217 at r3 (raw file):
// (1 << 31) - 1 is an offset no column can reach, it signifies the variable // offset, which is an input to the verifier. const CLAIMED_SUM_DUMMY_OFFSET: usize = (1 << 31) - 1;
you can take m31::P
Code quote:
onst CLAIMED_SUM_DUMMY_OFFSET: usize = (1 << 31) - 1;
crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/expr.rs
line 222 at r3 (raw file):
pub fn new(interaction: usize, has_partial_sum: bool, log_size: u32) -> Self { let total_sum_name = "total_sum".to_string(); let claimed_sum_name = "claimed_sum".to_string();
shouldnt they be specific per component?
Code quote:
let total_sum_name = "total_sum".to_string();
let claimed_sum_name = "claimed_sum".to_string();
crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/expr.rs
line 229 at r3 (raw file):
total_sum: Expr::Param(total_sum_name), claimed_sum: has_partial_sum .then_some((Expr::Param(claimed_sum_name), CLAIMED_SUM_DUMMY_OFFSET)),
if you dont care about the offest why is it here
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.
Reviewable status: 0 of 3 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ohad-starkware and @shaharsamocha7)
crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/expr.rs
line 217 at r3 (raw file):
Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…
you can take m31::P
Done.
crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/expr.rs
line 222 at r3 (raw file):
Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…
shouldnt they be specific per component?
There's no access to the component name here (nor really a notion of "component"), the way I think it would work is that every component will have a constraint evaluator function that will take "*_sum" as parameters, and the external glue code, that knows about components, will send them accordingly.
It's also possible that we may want to have some sort of "scoping" mechanism, but I'm saving that for when there are named columns because we can work around it here.
crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/expr.rs
line 229 at r3 (raw file):
Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…
if you dont care about the offest why is it here
To reuse the rest of the logup code, there has to be some offset, this sends the dummy offset that the code on line 47 interprets as a param.
159714d
to
e49c0a4
Compare
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.
Reviewed 1 of 3 files at r1, 1 of 1 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 2 of 3 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ohad-starkware)
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.
Reviewed 1 of 3 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @Alon-Ti)
No description provided.