fix/circuit-order: Reliable order of circuits in proofs #522
Conversation
| let wits_in = zkvm_witness.witnesses.remove(&name).unwrap().into_mles(); | ||
| let wits_in = zkvm_witness | ||
| .into_iter_sorted() | ||
| .next() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't that just first?
Seems a bit weird in any case, why not just ask for the one we know we want by name?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or exactly_once but somehow didn't work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, I'll have a look.
| @@ -205,7 +205,8 @@ impl<E: ExtensionField> ZKVMFixedTraces<E> { | |||
|
|
|||
| #[derive(Default)] | |||
| pub struct ZKVMWitnesses<E: ExtensionField> { | |||
| pub witnesses: BTreeMap<String, RowMajorMatrix<E::BaseField>>, | |||
| witnesses_opcodes: BTreeMap<String, RowMajorMatrix<E::BaseField>>, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wouldn't we want the kinds instead of the opcodes?
Or what does witnesses_opcodes mean?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There can be other circuits despite the name. It is called "opcode" everywhere until we find a more precise name.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So what's actually in there? The instructions or something else?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's what the caller of this type passed in assign_opcode_circuit, respectively assign_table_circuit.
Extracted from #368