Implement FieldOps for SIMD backend

[andrewmilson]

This change is 

[andrewmilson]

• Add benchmarks for SIMD fft #609
• Add benchmarks for SIMD quotients #608
• Add benchmarks for SIMD eval_at_point #607
• Add benchmarks for SIMD bit_reverse #606
• Implement QuotientOps for SIMD backend #605
• Implement AccumulationOps for SIMD backend #604
• Implement FriOps for SIMD backend #603
• Implement PolyOps for SIMD backend #599
• Modify FFT implementation for SIMD backend #596
• Add FFT implementation for SIMD backend #602
• Modify blake2s implementation for SIMD backend #595
• Add blake2s implementation for SIMD backend #601
• Modify bit_reverse for SIMD backend #594
• Add bit_reverse for SIMD backend #600
• Implement FieldOps for SIMD backend #593 👈
• Add SIMD backend arithmetic #592
• Enable 'rng.gen()'ing field types #591
• dev

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

Join @andrewmilson and the rest of your teammates on Graphite

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 54.36893% with 47 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (04-30-Add_SIMD_backend_arithmetic@d7299c5). Click here to learn what that means.

Files	Patch %	Lines
crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/column.rs	54.36%	45 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                         Coverage Diff                          @@
##             04-30-Add_SIMD_backend_arithmetic     #593   +/-   ##
====================================================================
  Coverage                                     ?   91.16%           
====================================================================
  Files                                        ?       75           
  Lines                                        ?     9438           
  Branches                                     ?     9438           
====================================================================
  Hits                                         ?     8604           
  Misses                                       ?      762           
  Partials                                     ?       72           

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

[shaharsamocha7]

Reviewable status: 0 of 4 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @andrewmilson)

---

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/column.rs line 15 at r1 (raw file):

    pub data: Vec<PackedBaseField>,
    pub length: usize,
}

We already have this struct in avx512.
Can't we reuse it?

Code quote:

#[derive(Clone, Debug)]
pub struct BaseFieldVec {
    pub data: Vec<PackedBaseField>,
    pub length: usize,
}

[andrewmilson]

Reviewable status: 0 of 4 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @shaharsamocha7)

---

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/column.rs line 15 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

We already have this struct in avx512.
Can't we reuse it?

Resolved offline.
avx512 is conditionally compiled for x86.

[spapinistarkware]

Like I said in rpevious PRs, it would be a lot easier to cehck these PRs if you first copied the avx file in a separate commit. Then we can just check the changes.

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 0 of 4 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @shaharsamocha7)

[shaharsamocha7]

Reviewed 2 of 4 files at r1, 2 of 2 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @andrewmilson)

---

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/column.rs line 27 at r2 (raw file):

        &mut cast_slice_mut(&mut self.data)[..self.length]
    }
}

We used to have as_slice, as_mut_slice. Is that ok?

Code quote:

impl AsRef<[BaseField]> for BaseFieldVec {
    fn as_ref(&self) -> &[BaseField] {
        &cast_slice(&self.data)[..self.length]
    }
}

impl AsMut<[BaseField]> for BaseFieldVec {
    fn as_mut(&mut self) -> &mut [BaseField] {
        &mut cast_slice_mut(&mut self.data)[..self.length]
    }
}

---

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/mod.rs line 24 at r2 (raw file):

        todo!()
    }
}

Why here and not in column.rs?

Code quote:

impl ColumnOps<BaseField> for SimdBackend {
    type Column = BaseFieldVec;

    fn bit_reverse_column(_column: &mut Self::Column) {
        todo!()
    }
}

[andrewmilson]

Reviewable status: 0 of 4 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @shaharsamocha7)

---

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/column.rs line 27 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

We used to have as_slice, as_mut_slice. Is that ok?

Yeah, it's better. Updated

---

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/mod.rs line 24 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

Why here and not in column.rs?

Done.

[shaharsamocha7]

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @andrewmilson)