mul

[ohad-starkware]

This change is 

[ohad-starkware]

• tracking relations #229 : 2 dependent PRs (#231 , #233 )
• call #222
• is first and row bounds relaxations #228
• jump #221
• add opcode #220
• mul #219 👈 (View in Graphite)
• assert gen #218
• jnz gen #217
• migrated opcodes air out of cairo air #216
• add_ap components #215
• update verify generic and ret from auto gen #214
• snake case generic and verify #209
• renamed relations #208
• pub use for memory and range checks #207
• renamed memory components #206
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[shaharsamocha7]

Reviewed 10 of 12 files at r1, 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 11 of 12 files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ohad-starkware)

---

a discussion (no related file):
I think Stav should check the changes in state_transitions.rs file

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/components/range_check_vector/mod.rs line 78 at r2 (raw file):

generate_range_check_code!([4, 3]);
generate_range_check_code!([6]);
generate_range_check_code!([3]);

Does this work with current impl? (the N_LANES problem)

Code quote:

generate_range_check_code!([3]);

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/cairo_air/opcodes_air.rs line 243 at r1 (raw file):

                input.casm_states_by_opcode.mul_opcode_is_small_t_is_imm_f,
            ));
        }

You also need to push here the big muls right?
Currently this only handles the small ones

Code quote:

        if !input
            .casm_states_by_opcode
            .mul_opcode_is_small_t_is_imm_f
            .is_empty()
        {
            mul_f_f.push(mul_opcode_is_small_f_is_imm_f::ClaimGenerator::new(
                input.casm_states_by_opcode.mul_opcode_is_small_t_is_imm_f,
            ));
        }

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/components/mod.rs line 26 at r2 (raw file):

pub use memory::{memory_address_to_id, memory_id_to_big};
pub use range_check_vector::{
    range_check_19, range_check_3, range_check_4_3, range_check_6, range_check_7_2_5,

I thought we don't want to use that

Code quote:

range_check_3,

[ohad-starkware]

Reviewable status: 11 of 12 files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @shaharsamocha7 and @Stavbe)

---

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

Here you only add large muls, right?
Don't we have the small mul yet?

the air has rc3 in it and wer'e not supporting that yet

---

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

I think Stav should check the changes in state_transitions.rs file

@Stavbe

[ohad-starkware]

Reviewable status: 11 of 12 files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @shaharsamocha7 and @Stavbe)

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/cairo_air/opcodes_air.rs line 243 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

You also need to push here the big muls right?
Currently this only handles the small ones

bug, done.

[Stavbe]

Reviewable status: 11 of 12 files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ohad-starkware, @shaharsamocha7, and @Stavbe)

---

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

@Stavbe

lgtm

[ohad-starkware]

Reviewable status: 9 of 13 files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @shaharsamocha7 and @Stavbe)

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/components/mod.rs line 26 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

I thought we don't want to use that

and not 6 (yet), fixed

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/components/range_check_vector/mod.rs line 78 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

Does this work with current impl? (the N_LANES problem)

removed

[shaharsamocha7]

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ohad-starkware and @Stavbe)

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/input/state_transitions.rs line 619 at r3 (raw file):

// Returns 'true' if the a memory value is within the range of [-2^27, 2^27 - 1].
fn is_small(val: MemoryValue) -> bool {
    matches!(val, MemoryValue::Small(val) if (val as i128>= SMALL_MIN_VALUE as i128) && (val as i128 <= SMALL_MAX_VALUE as i128))

currently small values are in the range [0, 2**72),
Do we really support small negative values or should we drop it for now?

Code quote:

MemoryValue::Small(val) if (val as i128>= SMALL_MIN_VALUE as i128)

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/input/state_transitions.rs line 619 at r3 (raw file):

// Returns 'true' if the a memory value is within the range of [-2^27, 2^27 - 1].
fn is_small(val: MemoryValue) -> bool {
    matches!(val, MemoryValue::Small(val) if (val as i128>= SMALL_MIN_VALUE as i128) && (val as i128 <= SMALL_MAX_VALUE as i128))

Can we test those functions?

Code quote:

// Returns 'true' if all the operands are within the range of [-2^27, 2^27 - 1].
fn are_small_operands(dst: MemoryValue, op0: MemoryValue, op1: MemoryValue) -> bool {
    is_small(dst) && is_small(op0) && is_small(op1)
}

// Returns 'true' if the a memory value is within the range of [-2^27, 2^27 - 1].
fn is_small(val: MemoryValue) -> bool {
    matches!(val, MemoryValue::Small(val) if (val as i128>= SMALL_MIN_VALUE as i128) && (val as i128 <= SMALL_MAX_VALUE as i128))

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/input/vm_import/mod.rs line 216 at r3 (raw file):

    }

    // When not ignored, the test passes only with dev_mod = false.

Why do we have this comment?
Either un-ignore it and use dev_mod=false
or just remove the ignore when it is supported.

Code quote:

// When not ignored, the test passes only with dev_mod = false.

[ohad-starkware]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @shaharsamocha7 and @Stavbe)

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/input/state_transitions.rs line 619 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

currently small values are in the range [0, 2**72),
Do we really support small negative values or should we drop it for now?

its a different small, thats changes from stavs pr

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/input/state_transitions.rs line 619 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

Can we test those functions?

stavs pr

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/input/vm_import/mod.rs line 216 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

Why do we have this comment?
Either un-ignore it and use dev_mod=false
or just remove the ignore when it is supported.

stavs pr

[shaharsamocha7]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ohad-starkware and @Stavbe)

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/input/vm_import/mod.rs line 216 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

stavs pr

This should be removed from there as well
unblocking

[ohad-starkware]

Reviewable status: 12 of 13 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @shaharsamocha7 and @Stavbe)

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/input/vm_import/mod.rs line 216 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

This should be removed from there as well
unblocking

will be removed with all the dev mode stuff soon enough

[ohad-starkware]

Merge activity

• Dec 5, 10:57 AM EST: A user started a stack merge that includes this pull request via Graphite.
• Dec 5, 10:57 AM EST: A user merged this pull request with Graphite.