Skip to content
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

Single step processor. #2272

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Jan 3, 2025
Merged

Single step processor. #2272

merged 9 commits into from
Jan 3, 2025

Conversation

chriseth
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@chriseth chriseth requested a review from georgwiese December 20, 2024 11:36
let mut progress = false;

for id in &self.machine_parts.identities {
let row_offset = if id.contains_next_ref() { 0 } else { 1 };
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm, this function does not look into intermediate definitions :/ So this would lead to a wrong result:

col foo = a + b';
foo = 2;

I think this should be fixed in a different PR, but maybe you could add a TODO?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I opened #2302 to track this.

Copy link
Collaborator

@georgwiese georgwiese left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Cool!

@@ -42,20 +42,6 @@ impl<'a, T: FieldElement, Q: QueryCallback<T>> MutableState<'a, T, Q> {
}
}

#[cfg(test)]
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should be on main already, from #2299, no? I'm surprised GitHub shows this diff.

let mut progress = false;

for id in &self.machine_parts.identities {
let row_offset = if id.contains_next_ref() { 0 } else { 1 };
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I opened #2302 to track this.

@georgwiese georgwiese added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 3, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit 6d2249a Jan 3, 2025
16 checks passed
@georgwiese georgwiese deleted the single_step_simple branch January 3, 2025 12:03
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants