-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 82
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
do not observe machines that were removed at runtime #2127
Conversation
@@ -3,14 +3,14 @@ use powdr::Session; | |||
fn main() { | |||
env_logger::init(); | |||
|
|||
let n = 21; | |||
let n = 22; |
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.
cause one more chunk
plonky3/src/prover.rs
Outdated
multi_table | ||
.tables | ||
.get(name) | ||
.and_then(|table| map.get(&table.degree).map(|entry| &entry.commitment)) |
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.
.and_then(|table| map.get(&table.degree).map(|entry| &entry.commitment)) | |
.and_then(|table| map[&table.degree].commitment) |
if the machine is there, this would skip the commitment if the size is not available. Instead, if the table is there, it's a hard error not to have a commitment for its size.
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.
Or a clean error that the machine cannot be proven because the setup doesn't cover it's length
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.
done
I wonder if a similar change should happen in the verifier? |
If I understand it correctly that's already done! https://github.com/powdr-labs/powdr/blob/main/plonky3/src/verifier.rs#L165 In here, a |
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.
Opps 😬
Just checked why this didn't happen in the test I added in #2078 ( |
Where in Arith? Not sure we should change std machines just to test this. |
I mean the machine called |
See [this comment](#2127 (comment)). This updated test would have caught a bug fixed in #2127.
No description provided.