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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

More zutil #384

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jul 8, 2018
Merged

More zutil #384

merged 1 commit into from Jul 8, 2018

Conversation

JasonGross
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@JasonGross JasonGross merged commit 76e6aec into mit-plv:master Jul 8, 2018
@JasonGross JasonGross deleted the more-zutil branch July 8, 2018 09:05
JasonGross added a commit to JasonGross/fiat-crypto that referenced this pull request Feb 21, 2022
@JasonGross
Better error messages
c543bda 
Probably if the lists are the same lengths, then we want to compare them
element-wise rather than all at once.  It's way too verbose to keep
expanding them, so we only do that when lists are not the same length.

We now get error messages such as
```
Unable to unify: [inr [378, 381, 384]] == [inr [101, 106, 108]]
Could not unify the values at index 0: [mit-plv#378, mit-plv#381, mit-plv#384] != [mit-plv#101, mit-plv#106, mit-plv#108]
index 0: mit-plv#378 != mit-plv#101
(slice 0 44, [mit-plv#377]) != (slice 0 44, [mit-plv#98])
index 0: mit-plv#377 != mit-plv#98
(add 64, [mit-plv#345, mit-plv#375]) != (add 64, [mit-plv#57, mit-plv#96])
index 0: mit-plv#345 != mit-plv#57
(slice 0 44, [mit-plv#337]) != (slice 0 44, [#44])
index 0: mit-plv#337 != #44
(add 64, [#41, mit-plv#334]) != (add 64, [#25, #41])
index 1: mit-plv#334 != #25
(mul 64, [#1, mit-plv#331]) != (mul 64, [#0, #1, #22])
[(add 64, [mit-plv#329, mit-plv#329])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [#7, mit-plv#328]), (mul 64, [#7, mit-plv#328])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, mit-plv#327])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, mit-plv#327])])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, mit-plv#326])])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, mit-plv#326])])])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, (const 4, [])])])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, (const 4, [])])])])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [(old 64 0, []), (mul 64, [(old 64 0, []), (const 4, [])])])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [(old 64 0, []), (mul 64, [(old 64 0, []), (const 4, [])])])])])] != [(old 64 0, []), (const 20, [])]
```

The second to last line is generally the one to look at; the last line
adds a bit more detail to it.  Perhaps we should instead list out the
values of indices rather than expanding one additional level?
JasonGross added a commit to JasonGross/fiat-crypto that referenced this pull request Feb 21, 2022
@JasonGross
Better error messages
bde03cc 
Probably if the lists are the same lengths, then we want to compare them
element-wise rather than all at once.  It's way too verbose to keep
expanding them, so we only do that when lists are not the same length.

We now get error messages such as
```
Unable to unify: [inr [378, 381, 384]] == [inr [101, 106, 108]]
Could not unify the values at index 0: [mit-plv#378, mit-plv#381, mit-plv#384] != [mit-plv#101, mit-plv#106, mit-plv#108]
index 0: mit-plv#378 != mit-plv#101
(slice 0 44, [mit-plv#377]) != (slice 0 44, [mit-plv#98])
index 0: mit-plv#377 != mit-plv#98
(add 64, [mit-plv#345, mit-plv#375]) != (add 64, [mit-plv#57, mit-plv#96])
index 0: mit-plv#345 != mit-plv#57
(slice 0 44, [mit-plv#337]) != (slice 0 44, [#44])
index 0: mit-plv#337 != #44
(add 64, [#41, mit-plv#334]) != (add 64, [#25, #41])
index 1: mit-plv#334 != #25
(mul 64, [#1, mit-plv#331]) != (mul 64, [#0, #1, #22])
[(add 64, [mit-plv#329, mit-plv#329])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [#7, mit-plv#328]), (mul 64, [#7, mit-plv#328])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, mit-plv#327])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, mit-plv#327])])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, mit-plv#326])])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, mit-plv#326])])])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, (const 4, [])])])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, (const 4, [])])])])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [(old 64 0, []), (mul 64, [(old 64 0, []), (const 4, [])])])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [(old 64 0, []), (mul 64, [(old 64 0, []), (const 4, [])])])])])] != [(old 64 0, []), (const 20, [])]
```

The second to last line is generally the one to look at; the last line
adds a bit more detail to it.  Perhaps we should instead list out the
values of indices rather than expanding one additional level?
JasonGross added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 22, 2022
@JasonGross
Better error messages
cfe296f 
Probably if the lists are the same lengths, then we want to compare them
element-wise rather than all at once.  It's way too verbose to keep
expanding them, so we only do that when lists are not the same length.

We now get error messages such as
```
Unable to unify: [inr [378, 381, 384]] == [inr [101, 106, 108]]
Could not unify the values at index 0: [#378, #381, #384] != [#101, #106, #108]
index 0: #378 != #101
(slice 0 44, [#377]) != (slice 0 44, [#98])
index 0: #377 != #98
(add 64, [#345, #375]) != (add 64, [#57, #96])
index 0: #345 != #57
(slice 0 44, [#337]) != (slice 0 44, [#44])
index 0: #337 != #44
(add 64, [#41, #334]) != (add 64, [#25, #41])
index 1: #334 != #25
(mul 64, [#1, #331]) != (mul 64, [#0, #1, #22])
[(add 64, [#329, #329])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [#7, #328]), (mul 64, [#7, #328])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, #327])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, #327])])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, #326])])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, #326])])])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, (const 4, [])])])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, (const 4, [])])])])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [(old 64 0, []), (mul 64, [(old 64 0, []), (const 4, [])])])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [(old 64 0, []), (mul 64, [(old 64 0, []), (const 4, [])])])])])] != [(old 64 0, []), (const 20, [])]
```

The second to last line is generally the one to look at; the last line
adds a bit more detail to it.  Perhaps we should instead list out the
values of indices rather than expanding one additional level?
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
awaiting-continuous-integration-check
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
1 participant
@JasonGross