Skip to content

Add support for v3.0 - #17

Merged
lgiussan merged 3 commits into
masterfrom
lg/v3.0
Sep 18, 2025
Merged

Add support for v3.0#17
lgiussan merged 3 commits into
masterfrom
lg/v3.0

Conversation

@lgiussan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

No description provided.

@lgiussan
lgiussan requested a review from la10736 September 16, 2025 10:28

@la10736 la10736 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You should add the benchmark for this new major version.

Beside that LGTM, just some minor comments of something that you inherent from my previous implementation.... sorry

Comment thread src/context/v3.rs Outdated
])
}

/// Return [V1] with the given map of hash suites.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess is V3 here, isn't it

Comment thread src/context/v3.rs Outdated
self
}

/// Return [V1] with the given [SegmentReceiptVerifierParameters] set.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See above comment

Comment thread src/context/v3.rs Outdated
self
}

/// Return [V1] with the given [SuccinctReceiptVerifierParameters] set.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See above comment (please check also V2... I guess is wrong too)

Comment thread src/context/v3.rs Outdated
}

impl V3<circuit::v3_0::CircuitImpl, circuit::v3_0::recursive::CircuitImpl> {
/// Create an empty [V3] for any risc0 proof generate for any `2.0.x` vm version.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

3.0.x, I guess

Comment thread src/context/v3.rs Outdated
}

fn segment_circuit_info(&self) -> ProtocolInfo {
ProtocolInfo(*b"RV32IM:v2rev2___")

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This value constant is already in in the circuit module.... why we don't use the constant from the circuit. Can you try if it works? and if it works, can you check also the other contexts?

Comment thread src/context/v3.rs Outdated
}

fn succinct_circuit_info(&self) -> ProtocolInfo {
ProtocolInfo(*b"RECURSION:rev1v1")

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same as above

Comment thread src/context/v3.rs Outdated
}

impl V3<circuit::v3_0::CircuitImpl, circuit::v3_0::recursive::CircuitImpl> {
/// Create an empty [V3] for any risc0 proof generate for any `2.0.x` vm version.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess is 3.0.x here

Comment thread src/context/v3.rs Outdated
])
}

/// Return [V1] with the given map of hash suites.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess V3 here, can you also check for V2 too... I bet that's is wrong too.

Comment thread src/context/v3.rs Outdated
self
}

/// Return [V1] with the given [SegmentReceiptVerifierParameters] set.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

same as above

Comment thread src/context/v3.rs Outdated
self
}

/// Return [V1] with the given [SuccinctReceiptVerifierParameters] set.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

same as above

@la10736 la10736 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great job!!!!

Thx

@lgiussan
lgiussan merged commit 2462689 into master Sep 18, 2025
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants