-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 234
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(avm): JUMPI opcode in AVM circuit #6800
Conversation
auto trace_no_jump = Execution::gen_trace(instructions, returndata, std::vector<FF>{ 0 }, public_inputs_vec); | ||
|
||
// Expected sequence of PCs during execution with jump | ||
std::vector<FF> pc_sequence_jump{ 0, 1, 2, 4, 5 }; |
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.
nice test vectors
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
@@ -373,8 +375,12 @@ namespace avm_main(256); | |||
|
|||
//===== CONTROL FLOW ======================================================= | |||
//===== JUMP =============================================================== | |||
#[PC_JUMP] |
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 suppose these could potentially be combined into the same relation? sel_jump feels like a subset of jumpi
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.
Yes it is. In addition one can combine with:
- sel_internal_call * (pc' - ia) = 0;
- sel_internal_return * (pc' - ia) = 0;
I suggest to favor readability for the time being and I will write a comment in PIL file about this consolidation.
b2c4624
to
7366170
Compare
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.
⚠️ Performance Alert ⚠️
Possible performance regression was detected for benchmark 'C++ Benchmark'.
Benchmark result of this commit is worse than the previous benchmark result exceeding threshold 1.05
.
Benchmark suite | Current: 7366170 | Previous: b2c4624 | Ratio |
---|---|---|---|
nativeClientIVCBench/Full/6 |
16399.12603799999 ms/iter |
15475.607738000008 ms/iter |
1.06 |
nativeconstruct_proof_ultrahonk_power_of_2/20 |
6500.152414999988 ms/iter |
5522.661730999999 ms/iter |
1.18 |
wasmconstruct_proof_ultrahonk_power_of_2/20 |
17933.838886 ms/iter |
16872.300216 ms/iter |
1.06 |
This comment was automatically generated by workflow using github-action-benchmark.
CC: @ludamad @codygunton
7366170
to
1ccab1d
Compare
Benchmark resultsNo metrics with a significant change found. Detailed resultsAll benchmarks are run on txs on the This benchmark source data is available in JSON format on S3 here. Proof generationEach column represents the number of threads used in proof generation.
L2 block published to L1Each column represents the number of txs on an L2 block published to L1.
L2 chain processingEach column represents the number of blocks on the L2 chain where each block has 16 txs.
Circuits statsStats on running time and I/O sizes collected for every kernel circuit run across all benchmarks.
Stats on running time collected for app circuits
Tree insertion statsThe duration to insert a fixed batch of leaves into each tree type.
MiscellaneousTransaction sizes based on how many contract classes are registered in the tx.
Transaction size based on fee payment method | Metric | | |
Resolves #6795