Skip to content
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

Simulator issues relating to Pedersen hash #670

Closed
codygunton opened this issue Aug 16, 2023 · 1 comment
Closed

Simulator issues relating to Pedersen hash #670

codygunton opened this issue Aug 16, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@codygunton
Copy link
Collaborator

It took some hacking to us the correct version of pedersen in various places. Here is a note I wrote to myself:

The circuit type (formerly “composer type”) is put in the vk. I don’t actually understand why. This means that UltraPlonk is hard-coded in at least 93 places in artifacts uses by e2e tests. So I need to make the simulator’s CircuitType be UltraPlonk. On the one hand, I think we should make sure somehow that the circuit simulator is actually using the UP code paths, but we don’t do that. In the common_contract_logic function, private_call_vk_hash is computed via the recursive code path, where HasPlookup determines the output. I can’t set HasPlookup for some reason. On the other hand, in abis__hash_vk, the hash is computed through compress_native in a vk datum, and here we determine whether to use lookups at runtime.

I've already discussed the vk issue here: #562. I would spend more energy understanding what's going on with Pedersen, but it sounds most efficient to wait for the new Pedersen hash be introduced--it makes more sense to undwind the hacks then, rather than to refactor now and then unwind them.

@codygunton codygunton changed the title Simulator issues relating to Pedersen hash. Simulator issues relating to Pedersen hash Aug 17, 2023
@codygunton
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Obsolete with AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#2592

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant