-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 270
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
feat: passing partial log through transient storage #9295
feat: passing partial log through transient storage #9295
Conversation
This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking. |
94fa09d
to
75a5ef9
Compare
for i in 0..expected_compressed_point_positive_sign.len() { | ||
assert_eq(compressed_point[i], expected_compressed_point_positive_sign[i]); | ||
} | ||
assert_eq(expected_compressed_point_positive_sign, compressed_point); |
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.
Unrelated change --> the for loop here was unnecessary.
for i in 0..expected_compressed_point_negative_sign.len() { | ||
assert_eq(compressed_point[i], expected_compressed_point_negative_sign[i]); | ||
} | ||
assert_eq(expected_compressed_point_negative_sign, compressed_point); |
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.
Unrelated change --> the for loop here was unnecessary.
for i in 0..31 { | ||
assert_eq(inputs[i], return_bytes[i]); | ||
} | ||
assert_eq(inputs, return_bytes); |
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.
Unrelated change --> the for loop here was unnecessary.
for i in 0..31 { | ||
assert_eq(return_bytes2[i], return_bytes[i]); | ||
} | ||
assert_eq(return_bytes2, return_bytes); |
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.
Unrelated change --> the for loop here was unnecessary.
b86c06e
to
142193f
Compare
67d9ff2
to
e00a732
Compare
fab6ec1
to
b4cc503
Compare
e00a732
to
b08d105
Compare
b4cc503
to
c6e3cf1
Compare
b08d105
to
63f9e9b
Compare
c6e3cf1
to
e6e8d54
Compare
This PR re-introduces changes reverted in this PR. There is 1 difference compared to the original code. In the original code we stored number of public values appended and in this PR we store only a flag indicating whether public values were appended. We can afford to do this because now we have information about the public/partial fields in the ABI. This makes it possible to optimize the DA cost further as now we need only 1 bit of info and not a byte.