You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
to be serialized into proving/verifying key. So, we expect some fields scope should be move to cfg[test] or just under some feature flag toggle on
All the "xxxxx_map" fields is one of the example. Those debug info are
from prover perspective, only push those name strings in non-release build. Those variable debug name shouldn't be in release build nor in binary.
from verifier perspective, neither debug nor release need this information, so they should have them "serde skip".
With above 2 points, I will say this PR change is unnessesary, because source of truth shouldn't reverse release info to depends on debug info
@hero78119 Could you please add that reasoning as a comment in the code? And perhaps make it so that witin_namespace_map actually only show up in debug mode? (Or otherwise leave a TODO-comment to that effect?)
Btw, I don't think we should spend effort removing variable names from a release build. It's better to leave them around for debugging, because things can go wrong with the release build, too.
(That's all assuming that constructing the circuit is far from the most expensive thing we are doing. I expect (recursive) proving to take the majority of the runtime.)
@hero78119 Could you please add that reasoning as a comment in the code? And perhaps make it so that
witin_namespace_map
actually only show up in debug mode? (Or otherwise leave a TODO-comment to that effect?)Btw, I don't think we should spend effort removing variable names from a release build. It's better to leave them around for debugging, because things can go wrong with the release build, too.
(That's all assuming that constructing the circuit is far from the most expensive thing we are doing. I expect (recursive) proving to take the majority of the runtime.)
Originally posted by @matthiasgoergens in #465 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: