Make prove() generic in Backend

[spapinistarkware]

This change is 

[spapinistarkware]

• Make prove() generic in Backend #490 : 2 dependent PRs (#491 , #492 ) 👈
• CommitmentSchemeProver generic in backend #489
• Fri AVX ops #563
• AVX quotients #488
• Remove old merkle #531 : 1 other dependent PR (#486 )
• FRI using simple merkle #530
• Dumb down FRI #529
• avx merkle #528
• simple merkle benchmark #527
• Use simple merkle tree #526
• merkle intermediate layers #548
• dev

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

Join @spapinistarkware and the rest of your teammates on Graphite

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 80.32787% with 12 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (spapini/03-15-commitmentschemeprover_generic_in_backend@3659df9). Click here to learn what that means.

❗ Current head 42c6621 differs from pull request most recent head 2053114. Consider uploading reports for the commit 2053114 to get more accurate results

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/core/backend/avx512/accumulation.rs	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
src/core/backend/avx512/mod.rs	58.33%	5 Missing ⚠️
src/core/air/air_ext.rs	80.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                                    Coverage Diff                                     @@
##             spapini/03-15-commitmentschemeprover_generic_in_backend     #490   +/-   ##
==========================================================================================
  Coverage                                                           ?   93.35%           
==========================================================================================
  Files                                                              ?       65           
  Lines                                                              ?     8301           
  Branches                                                           ?     8301           
==========================================================================================
  Hits                                                               ?     7749           
  Misses                                                             ?      490           
  Partials                                                           ?       62           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[andrewmilson]

Reviewable status: 5 of 11 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @spapinistarkware)

---

src/core/prover/mod.rs line 170 at r5 (raw file):

    air: &impl Air<B>,
    mut sampled_values: TreeVec<ColumnVec<Vec<SecureField>>>,
) -> Result<(ComponentVec<Vec<SecureField>>, SecureField), ()> {

Can we have a specific error something like InvalidOodsSampleStructure or document the error case please?

---

src/core/prover/mod.rs line 171 at r5 (raw file):

    mut sampled_values: TreeVec<ColumnVec<Vec<SecureField>>>,
) -> Result<(ComponentVec<Vec<SecureField>>, SecureField), ()> {
    let composition_partial_sampled_values = sampled_values.pop().ok_or(())?;

So the last value is always the composition? Should we document this? /// Assumes the last sample corresponds to the OODS values for the composition columns.

[spapinistarkware]

Reviewable status: 3 of 14 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @andrewmilson)

---

src/core/prover/mod.rs line 170 at r5 (raw file):

Previously, andrewmilson (Andrew Milson) wrote…

Can we have a specific error something like InvalidOodsSampleStructure or document the error case please?

Can we do this in another PR? It's not related to this one.

---

src/core/prover/mod.rs line 171 at r5 (raw file):

Previously, andrewmilson (Andrew Milson) wrote…

So the last value is always the composition? Should we document this? /// Assumes the last sample corresponds to the OODS values for the composition columns.

Can we do this in another PR? It's not related to this one.

[spapinistarkware]

Merge activity

• Apr 4, 7:04 AM EDT: @spapinistarkware started a stack merge that includes this pull request via Graphite.
• Apr 4, 7:07 AM EDT: Graphite rebased this pull request as part of a merge.
• Apr 4, 7:08 AM EDT: @spapinistarkware merged this pull request with Graphite.