Costing for expModIntger, take two.
#7080
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
kwxm
added
Costing
zliu41
approved these changes
May 8, 2025
| @@ -1 +1 @@ | |||
| Integer -> Integer -> Natural -> BuiltinResult Natural No newline at end of file | |||
| IntegerCostedByNumBytes -> IntegerCostedByNumBytes -> IntegerCostedByNumBytes -> BuiltinResult Natural No newline at end of file | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How are these golden files generated? I don't see a type called IntegerCostedByNumBytes in the codebase?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, I removed that. I updated most of the golden files but must have forgotten this one. I'll fix that.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes https://github.com/IntersectMBO/plutus-private/issues/1448
Fixes https://github.com/IntersectMBO/plutus-private/issues/1554
The earlier PR (#7071) for this measured sizes of inputs in bytes (not words) in order to get a high-resolution view of the data. I redid it with the standard size measure (8-byte words) and the results were just as accurate, so I decided to use that instead and open a new PR since it simplifies things a lot.
Some costs calculated according to the new costing function:
This seems reasonable for realistic input sizes, and it's actaully a bit cheaper than the previous version.