-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 843
Transient Storage Support #1797
Transient Storage Support #1797
Conversation
ad27230
to
a295f0f
Compare
@zemse Any idea on why the main tests are not passing? |
The geth-utils is giving a |
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ use halo2_proofs::{ | |||
use std::collections::HashMap; | |||
|
|||
// Step dimension | |||
pub(crate) const STEP_WIDTH: usize = 139; | |||
pub(crate) const STEP_WIDTH: usize = 140; |
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.
This was required because this assert statement fails.
seems that the format of trace errors from geth is changes
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.
First pass
Co-authored-by: Miha Stopar <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Miha Stopar <[email protected]>
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.
I only have one additional nitpick. It looks ok to me, but I am not sure what could be the cause for the test failure. I will have a look into it.
Co-authored-by: Miha Stopar <[email protected]>
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.
The CI test failure remains to be fixed.
Otherwise, LGTM.
I added some nitpicks
Co-authored-by: Chih Cheng Liang <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Chih Cheng Liang <[email protected]>
Tests are passing now! @miha-stopar @ChihChengLiang |
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.
LGTM. Great fix!
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.
LGTM!
e7171f6
@zemse i think we should also modify |
self.transient_storage | ||
.push(Operation::new(rwc, rwc_inner_chunk, rw, op)); | ||
OperationRef::from((Target::TransientStorage, self.transient_storage.len() - 1)) | ||
} |
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.
since tstore can be reversible, we should also write like this?
if reversible {
Operation::new_reversible(rwc, rwc_inner_chunk, rw, op)
} else {
Operation::new(rwc, rwc_inner_chunk, rw, op)
}
#1761