-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 143
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.
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
fix/improve docs #540
fix/improve docs #540
Conversation
@slab-ci cpu_fast_test |
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@ | |||
use std::time::Instant; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
dark market changes are just file reorgs ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In the second commit, yes, its mostly file reorgs plus closure converted to static functions for readability
The last commit is a formula change for the improved parallelized version
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
did you check the updated function works as expected ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes (expect for the last test case which is very slow), I just had to fix an underflow which got caught in devo profile
4792c1a
to
bdb1467
Compare
@slab-ci cpu_fast_test |
bdb1467
to
72c634a
Compare
@slab-ci cpu_fast_test |
72c634a
to
214cacd
Compare
@slab-ci cpu_fast_test |
214cacd
to
622287c
Compare
@slab-ci cpu_fast_test |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #540 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 23.11% 23.28% +0.16%
==========================================
Files 256 255 -1
Lines 19573 19536 -37
==========================================
+ Hits 4525 4549 +24
+ Misses 15048 14987 -61 |
622287c
to
247147e
Compare
@slab-ci cpu_fast_test |
tfhe/docs/how_to/compress.md
Outdated
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ TFHE-rs includes features to reduce the size of both keys and ciphertexts, by co | |||
|
|||
In the library, entities that can be compressed are prefixed by `Compressed`. For instance, the type of a compressed `FheUint256` is `CompressedFheUint256`. | |||
|
|||
In the following example code, we use the `bincode` crate dependency to compare serialized sizes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
phrasing may make it seems like bincode only serves too compare serialized sizes,
In the following example code, we use the `bincode` crate dependency to serialize in a binary format and compare serialized sizes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed
@slab-ci cpu_fast_test |
|
||
* The input string can only contain ascii characters. | ||
|
||
It is not possible to create branches where the condition if an encrypted integer, meaning the function cannot use conditional statements. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
where the condition if ? the sentence looks odd
also now we have if_then_else that does basically what the code describe, maybe the correct way of writing it is to say "it is not possible to branch on an encrypted value, however it is possible to evaluate a boolean condition and output the proper result" or something along those lines ?
follow up issue for updating the code to use if_then_else
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Rephrased
a0fb04b
to
065d415
Compare
@slab-ci cpu_fast_test |
Pull Request has been approved 🎉 |
fine to merge if you had time to check the updated code is valid |
Yes, I tested it manually in a AWS instance |
No description provided.