-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
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
call fe_verfiy
for not normalized field element in fe_set_b32
#1061
Comments
This was changed in 34a67c7. I believe this is this intentionally to optimize the tests. Can you check if the tests take noticeably longer if the fe_verify is moved after the else block? |
build commands:
There isn't much difference in the execution time. |
Oh I think the Yeah, I mean if the difference is below a second, I'd say it's reasonable to always do the verify. |
Makes sense. The change required here is relatively small. I will check other parts of the code for similar issues and bundle them up in a PR. |
I didn't know such a command existed. I initially tried to use |
Maybe this could be solved in #1062 ? I think it will be similar to some changes proposed there. |
…k` calls (in tests) 54058d1 field: remove `secp256k1_fe_equal_var` (siv2r) bb4efd6 tests: remove unwanted `secp256k1_fe_normalize_weak` call (siv2r) Pull request description: Fixes #946 and #1061 Changes: - removes unwanted `fe_normalize_weak` calls to the second argument of `fe_equal` - removes `fe_equal_var` ACKs for top commit: real-or-random: utACK 54058d1 jonasnick: ACK 54058d1 Tree-SHA512: 89bfd1c205f760d0736b995adebb96d15b0df0a42ece25885c57ae7f4318f6816eb009a7fe94b5987a4cbb8588f0fffbdc275234b406a2d1f80d7695b4bd89db
This has been resolved by #1062. |
secp256k1/src/field_5x52_impl.h
Lines 331 to 339 in a1102b1
Shouldn't the call to
secp256k1_fe_verify
come after the else block?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: