Add Structs using PreprocessedColumn Trait

[Gali-StarkWare]

No description provided.

[reviewable-StarkWare]

This change is 

[Gali-StarkWare]

Warning

This pull request is not mergeable via GitHub because a downstack PR is open. Once all requirements are satisfied, merge this PR as a stack on Graphite.
Learn more

• Remove PreProcessedColumn Enum #968
• Use PreProcessedColumn Trait Instead of Enum #967
• Add Structs using PreprocessedColumn Trait #966 👈 (View in Graphite)
• Add PreProcessedColumn Trait #965
• dev

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

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 27 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 92.04%. Comparing base (663fec9) to head (c58dc9d).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...r/src/constraint_framework/preprocessed_columns.rs	0.00%	27 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                            Coverage Diff                            @@
##           gali/create_preprocessed_column_trait     #966      +/-   ##
=========================================================================
- Coverage                                  92.26%   92.04%   -0.22%     
=========================================================================
  Files                                        105      105              
  Lines                                      14357    14311      -46     
  Branches                                   14357    14311      -46     
=========================================================================
- Hits                                       13246    13173      -73     
- Misses                                      1038     1065      +27     
  Partials                                      73       73              

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

[ohad-starkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Gali-StarkWare and @shaharsamocha7)

---

crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/preprocessed_columns.rs line 169 at r1 (raw file):

// TODO(Gali): Add documentation.
#[derive(Debug)]
pub struct Plonk {

can you not include this?

---

crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/preprocessed_columns.rs line 201 at r1 (raw file):

/// A column with `1` at every `2^log_step` positions, `0` elsewhere, shifted by offset.
#[derive(Debug)]
pub struct IsStepWithOffset {

same, if theyre not used, add a todo to implement them
I suspect no one will do those todos for a while, or ever.

[Gali-StarkWare]

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ohad-starkware and @shaharsamocha7)

---

crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/preprocessed_columns.rs line 201 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

same, if theyre not used, add a todo to implement them
I suspect no one will do those todos for a while, or ever.

They are used in the examples (I guess this is the reason they exist in the first place), that's why I asked you if this is the right place for them, or maybe now is the time to move their declaration to be in the examples themselves.

[ohad-starkware]

crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/preprocessed_columns.rs line 201 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, Gali-StarkWare wrote…

They are used in the examples (I guess this is the reason they exist in the first place), that's why I asked you if this is the right place for them, or maybe now is the time to move their declaration to be in the examples themselves.

Right, I wrote a suggestion in #965 to rid of this

[semgrep-code-starkware-libs]

Detected 'unsafe' usage, please audit for secure usage

🎉 Removed in commit c58dc9d 🎉

[semgrep-code-starkware-libs]

Semgrep Assistant suggests the following fix: Ensure safe usage of PackedM31::from_simd_unchecked by verifying input validity or using a safe alternative.

View step-by-step instructions

1. Review the PackedM31::from_simd_unchecked function to understand why it requires unsafe and what invariants must be upheld for safe usage.
2. Check if there is a safe alternative to from_simd_unchecked that can be used instead. If such a function exists, replace PackedM31::from_simd_unchecked with the safe alternative.
3. If no safe alternative exists, ensure that the input to from_simd_unchecked is always valid and does not violate any invariants required by the function. This may involve adding checks or assertions before the unsafe block to guarantee safety.
4. Document the reason for using unsafe and the guarantees that are being upheld in a comment above the unsafe block. This will help future developers understand why unsafe is necessary and how it is being used safely.

This code change should be a good starting point:

Suggested change

	unsafe {
	PackedM31::from_simd_unchecked(Simd::from_array(std::array::from_fn(|i| {
	if i == 0 {
	1
	} else {
	0
	}
	})))
	}
	// Ensure that the input to `from_simd_unchecked` is valid.
	// In this case, we are creating a SIMD vector with a specific pattern
	// that is known to be safe for the `PackedM31` type.
	// The use of `unsafe` is justified because we are controlling the input
	// and ensuring it adheres to the expected invariants.
	let simd_array = Simd::from_array(std::array::from_fn(|i| {
	if i == 0 {
	1
	} else {
	0
	}
	}));
	PackedM31::from_simd(simd_array)

_{Leave feedback with a 👍 / 👎. Save a memory with /remember <your custom instructions>.}

[semgrep-code-starkware-libs]

Semgrep found 1 unsafe-usage finding:

• crates/prover/src/constraint_framework/preprocessed_columns.rs
  • L126-134 - Triage

Detected 'unsafe' usage, please audit for secure usage