-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 160
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
Implement new hash_memory
proc
#1519
Implement new hash_memory
proc
#1519
Conversation
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.
Looks good! Thank you! I didn't review the logic of the function in detail as I'm assuming it is the same as in the previous PR. But I did leave a couple of small comments inline.
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.
Thank you! I left a couple more comments inline. Also, it may be good to add a hash_memory_double_words
procedure - but probably in a different PR.
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.
Looks good to me, thank you!
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.
Looks good! Thank you! I left one question inline - but it could also be addressed separately.
end | ||
"; | ||
|
||
build_test!(source, &[]).expect_stack(&[0; 4]); |
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.
Why not test against expected stack [0; 16]
?
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.
My initial thought was to check the actual value which hash_memory_words
produces, but we can check the entire stack, the result should be the same.
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.
Let's check the entire stack - this way we'll be sure that the procedure doesn't "mess" with the rest of the stack.
This is the same PR as #1369 needed to re-add this procedure to the
al-migrate-new-padding-rule
branch.