ripemd_160builtin
#6378
ripemd_160builtin
#6378
Conversation
|
There were some unexpected changes in the golden files for the |
nix/project.nix
Outdated
| @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ let | |||
|
|
|||
| sha256map = { | |||
| "https://github.com/jaccokrijnen/plutus-cert"."e814b9171398cbdfecdc6823067156a7e9fc76a3" = "0srqvx0b819b5crrbsa9hz2fnr50ahqizvvm0wdmyq2bbpk2rka7"; | |||
| "https://github.com/paluh/cardano-base"."ea31e27ae4c9715232fa20e2e91f23e5bd967d65" = "sha256-R/uqcScLbkFhYL8x0FL7eQ2UIJY30o6ec312I/E7KdU="; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why this line? I thought this is only for SRP's and there is no such SRP in the
cabal.project.
Thanks for pointing those out, @bezirg. I hadn't spotted that. I'll try removing it and see what happens.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, I've removed that. Let's see if it makes any difference.
| "memory": { | ||
| "arguments": 3, | ||
| "type": "constant_cost" | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
VERY IMPORTANT!
This has 2 entries for RIPEMD (with different values actually), which is dangerous considering it is JSON: based on the specific implementation, a json library silently picks the first occurrence or the last occurence. Aeson I think picks the first one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you. I hope that's fixed now. I added the new costing function but forgot to delete the preliminary one (which was a duplicate of the one for keccak_256). The old one was also in the wrong place, which might not have been so good.
| "ripemd_160-cpu-arguments-intercept": 1927926, | ||
| "ripemd_160-cpu-arguments-slope": 82523, | ||
| "ripemd_160-memory-arguments": 4, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These numbers do not match the builtinCostModelB&C.json but only one of the 2 duplicates in A.json
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Grrr. I thought I'd been very careful about that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That file's only for testing, so I think the actual numbers don't matter. I'll change it anyway, just to be on the safe side.
|
Somehow this seems to have become broken, possibly due to the changes in #6171. I'll try to fix it later. |
|
It turned out that a lot of the tests were replicated for the These tests need to be reworked anyway: see #6089. |
This updates #6252 to make it mergeable with the current state of
plutus-core(including all of the bitwise work). This implements the proposed CIP for adding the RIPEMD-160 hash function to Plutus. Thanks to @paluh for doing all the hard work.I've also updated the cost model to include
ripemd_160. As a precaution I re-ran the costing benchmarks forkeccak_256to make sure that nothing had changed too much. The attached PNG shows the results. The original results forkeccak_256are the black points and the new cones s are the blue ones: there's a small difference that's probably due to randomness in our benchmarking machine, but the results aren't dratically different. The results forripemd_160are the red points and they don't show any unexpected behaviour. The costing function forripemd_160is a straight line fitted to those points.