Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Explore
By company size
By use case
By industry
View all solutions
Topics
- AI
- DevOps
- Security
- Software Development
- View all
Explore
- GitHub Sponsors
  Fund open source developers
- The ReadME Project
  GitHub community articles
Repositories
- Enterprise platform
  AI-powered developer platform
Available add-ons
Pricing

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Search

Clear

Search syntax tips

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Include my email address so I can be contacted

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Name

Query

To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.

You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.

Dismiss alert

noir-lang / noir Public

Notifications You must be signed in to change notification settings
Fork 250
Star 1k

Code
Issues 448
Pull requests 57
Discussions
Actions
Security
Insights

Additional navigation options

Code
Issues
Pull requests
Discussions
Actions
Security
Insights

Back to pull request #7295

feat: require safety comments instead of safety doc comments #3371

Sign in to view logs

Sign in to view logs

feat: require safety comments instead of safety doc comments

feat: require safety comments instead of safety doc comments #3371

Summary
Jobs
Run details
- Usage
- Workflow file

Usage Workflow file

Brillig bytecode sizes

Brillig bytecode sizes

succeeded Feb 14, 2025 in 1m 17s

Loading

Re-running jobs...

You can’t perform that action at this time.