perf(crypto): optimize secp256k1 field element comparison

[crStiv]

Optimizes the field element comparison function in secp256k1 implementation
by changing the comparison order from most significant to least significant
digits to least significant to most significant. This change can improve
performance in common cases where numbers differ in lower digits, avoiding
unnecessary comparisons of higher digits.

The semantic behavior of the function remains unchanged while potentially
providing better performance characteristics for typical use cases in
cryptographic operations.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Refactor
  • Updated comparison logic for field elements in the cryptographic library
  • Modified loop iteration order in field element comparison function

This update involves a subtle change in how field elements are compared, which may improve performance or address a specific implementation detail in the cryptographic key generation process.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces a modification to the secp256k1_fe_cmp_var function in the field element comparison implementation for the secp256k1 cryptographic library. The primary change involves altering the loop iteration direction from descending (9 to 0) to ascending (0 to 9) when comparing two field elements. This adjustment affects the order of comparison while maintaining the core logic of determining element relationships.

Changes

File	Change Summary
crypto/keys/secp256k1/internal/secp256k1/libsecp256k1/src/field_10x26_impl.h	Modified secp256k1_fe_cmp_var function loop iteration from descending to ascending index traversal

The changes are minimal and focused on the loop iteration order within the field element comparison function, with no other significant modifications to the implementation.

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 8493d4f and a9fd8b7.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• crypto/keys/secp256k1/internal/secp256k1/libsecp256k1/src/field_10x26_impl.h (1 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)

• GitHub Check: Summary

🔇 Additional comments (1)

crypto/keys/secp256k1/internal/secp256k1/libsecp256k1/src/field_10x26_impl.h (1)

Line range hint 312-320: Smart shift to prioritize lower-index differences for performance

Switching the comparison order to start at i = 0 can reduce unnecessary comparisons if the lower-index words differ more often and earlier for typical usage patterns. This approach should yield the same overall results, providing a promising performance benefit in many real-world scenarios. However, it’s worth verifying that no downstream code specifically relies on comparing the most significant digits first.

Below is a script to confirm there are no places in the codebase that rely on a particular iteration order in secp256k1_fe_cmp_var. It searches for all references to the function and displays some context around each usage:

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[tac0turtle]

would you be able to provide benchmarks on this change?

[crStiv]

would you be able to provide benchmarks on this change?

Hey Marco! Sorry, but I can't provide Go benchmarks for this change because this is C code in libsecp256k1, and Go benchmarks wouldn't show the real performance difference here.

The main reason for changing the loop from backward to forward is that modern CPUs are better optimized for forward iteration (i = 0; i < n; i++). It's a common optimization pattern that most developers use.

If you really need benchmarks, I can try to add them using C code in the libsecp256k1 testing framework. Let me know if you want me to do that!