-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 293
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: Use oink in IVC #8161
Merged
Merged
feat: Use oink in IVC #8161
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
564e7eb
first accumulation uses oink, basic test passes
ledwards2225 c84d232
WiP debugging; solution is oink as an instance completer
ledwards2225 548776f
Merge branch 'master' into lde/oink_in_ivc
ledwards2225 e2d4143
correctly init gate challanges in oink case
ledwards2225 e20c77f
return ivc integration tests to their original state
ledwards2225 6c3ce5c
coments and cleanup
ledwards2225 60f931f
more comments
ledwards2225 5a2ab8b
more comments and cleanup
ledwards2225 8b8fe33
remove spare WORKTODOs
ledwards2225 073553f
couple more comment corrections
ledwards2225 87f411e
const-ify and do fix some naming in response to review
ledwards2225 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Seems like this struct and the proof type inside should be renamed now because it's not about folding in the Oink case, right?
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.
Also, why not handle the merge steps using this queue as well?
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.
Thanks, updated the naming. You're right that the merge stuff could be handled in the same way. I didn't do it because there are no verification keys for the merge protocol and also because I'm hoping that the merge recursive verifier goes away altogether. If it doesn't tho, you're right that it should probably be made to conform