Refactor R1CS struct to be generic on field #63
Conversation
src/backends/mod.rs
Outdated
| pub enum BackendKind { | ||
| KimchiVesta(KimchiVesta), | ||
| R1CS(R1csBls12_381), | ||
| R1csBls12_381(R1CS<R1csBls12381Field>), | ||
| R1csBn128(R1CS<R1csBn128Field>), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should we call it bn254 everywhere? what's the most popular name :D?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
snarkjs calls it bn128 :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe better with bn254 as the google results seem to prefer this one
| constraints: Vec<Constraint>, | ||
| witness_vars: Vec<Value<R1csBls12_381>>, | ||
| constraints: Vec<Constraint<F>>, | ||
| witness_vars: Vec<Value<Self>>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess we need #38 as some point to make Value<F>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe at the point when we are implementing the stdlib, so we can review the better way to handle Hint.
src/cli/cmd_build_and_check.rs
Outdated
| ); | ||
| // verify proof | ||
| verifier_index.verify(full_public_inputs, proof)?; | ||
| println!("proof verified"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe keep it unimplemented!() to not surprise anyone with a different behavior?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That makes sense as this run command is expected to generate circuit and witness files for r1cs, but it currently does inline proving and verifying for kimchi without generating anything. We may revisit this when it is needed to serialize the kimchi circuit and witness.
I updated it to keep unimplemented! for the kimchi backend for this command.
| .public_outputs | ||
| .iter() | ||
| .map(|var| witness[var.index]) | ||
| .collect(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah yeah! Indeed that is practical
No description provided.