Exported shared code to temp variables in ExprEvaluator.

[Alon-Ti]

No description provided.

[reviewable-StarkWare]

This change is 

[Alon-Ti]

• Added From<G> in add_constraint. #901
• Simplify expressions. #894
• Exported shared code to temp variables in ExprEvaluator. #893 👈 (View in Graphite)
• Added total_ and claimed_sums as formal variables in ExprEvaluator. #892
• State machine constraint string. #889
• Expr formatting. #888
• Formal Expr logup variables. #887
• Initialize logups automatically when first used. #879 : 1 other dependent PR (#883 )
• Abstracted eval.write_fracs to eval.add_to_relations. #876
• Added LogupAtRow functionality to EvalAtRow. #875
• dev

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[Alon-Ti]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @shaharsamocha7)

---

crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/expr.rs line 328 at r1 (raw file):

    #[test]
    fn test_expr_eval() {

This was a pain to keep up to date, doesn't mean much to the reader, and became kind of redundant with the repr test.

[github-actions]

⚠️ 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: 0b14862	Previous: cd8b37b	Ratio
iffts/simd ifft/22	12620057 ns/iter (± 260219)	6306399 ns/iter (± 210024)	2.00
merkle throughput/simd merkle	30039533 ns/iter (± 251957)	13712527 ns/iter (± 579195)	2.19

This comment was automatically generated by workflow using github-action-benchmark.

CC: @shaharsamocha7

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.11321% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 91.92%. Comparing base (6de095b) to head (0b14862).
Report is 3 commits behind head on dev.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/expr.rs	98.11%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev     #893      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.83%   91.92%   +0.08%     
==========================================
  Files          93       93              
  Lines       13339    13721     +382     
  Branches    13339    13721     +382     
==========================================
+ Hits        12250    12613     +363     
- Misses        972      999      +27     
+ Partials      117      109       -8     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[ohad-starkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @shaharsamocha7)

---

crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/expr.rs line 328 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, Alon-Ti wrote…

This was a pain to keep up to date, doesn't mean much to the reader, and became kind of redundant with the repr test.

yes this is not a good test

[ohad-starkware]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Alon-Ti and @shaharsamocha7)

---

crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/expr.rs line 245 at r3 (raw file):

    pub logup: FormalLogupAtRow,
    pub temp_vars: Vec<(String, Expr)>,
    cur_temp_var_index: usize,

.len()

---

crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/expr.rs line 255 at r3 (raw file):

            constraints: Default::default(),
            logup: FormalLogupAtRow::new(INTERACTION_TRACE_IDX, has_partial_sum, log_size),
            temp_vars: vec![],

Suggestion:

intermediates

[shaharsamocha7]

Reviewed 1 of 2 files at r1, 1 of 1 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Alon-Ti)

---

crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/expr.rs line 318 at r3 (raw file):

        } else {
            unreachable!();
        }

Change to match

Code quote:

        if let Expr::Mul(one, constraint) = Expr::one() * constraint {
            assert_eq!(*one, Expr::one());
            self.constraints.push(*constraint);
        } else {
            unreachable!();
        }

[Alon-Ti]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ohad-starkware and @shaharsamocha7)

---

crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/expr.rs line 245 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

.len()

Done.

---

crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/expr.rs line 318 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

Change to match

Done.

---

crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/expr.rs line 255 at r3 (raw file):

            constraints: Default::default(),
            logup: FormalLogupAtRow::new(INTERACTION_TRACE_IDX, has_partial_sum, log_size),
            temp_vars: vec![],

Done.

[ohad-starkware]

Reviewable status: 1 of 2 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Alon-Ti and @shaharsamocha7)

---

crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/expr.rs line 311 at r1 (raw file):

    fn add_constraint<G>(&mut self, constraint: G)
    where
        Self::EF: std::ops::Mul<G, Output = Self::EF>,

add From to the trait function, and use .into here instead of all this

Code quote:

 Self::EF: std::ops::Mul<G, Output = Self::EF>

[Alon-Ti]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ohad-starkware and @shaharsamocha7)

---

crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/expr.rs line 311 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

add From to the trait function, and use .into here instead of all this

Fixed in 901.

[shaharsamocha7]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Alon-Ti and @ohad-starkware)

---

crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/expr.rs line 265 at r5 (raw file):

    }

    pub fn add_temp_var(&mut self, expr: Expr) -> Expr {

do we want to call it temp_var or intermediate?
In all places

Code quote:

pub fn add_temp_var(&mut self, expr: Expr) -> Expr {

[ohad-starkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @Alon-Ti and @shaharsamocha7)

[Alon-Ti]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @shaharsamocha7)

---

crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/expr.rs line 265 at r5 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

do we want to call it temp_var or intermediate?
In all places

Done.

[shaharsamocha7]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r6, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @Alon-Ti)