-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 205
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
Restore opcode gas costs from Ethereum #2117
Conversation
Coverage from tests in coverage: 48.1% of statements across all listed packagescoverage: 58.1% of statements in consensus/istanbul coverage: 37.9% of statements in consensus/istanbul/announce coverage: 54.3% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend coverage: 0.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend/backendtest coverage: 24.3% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend/internal/replica coverage: 61.6% of statements in consensus/istanbul/core coverage: 45.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/db coverage: 0.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/proxy coverage: 64.4% of statements in consensus/istanbul/uptime coverage: 51.8% of statements in consensus/istanbul/validator coverage: 79.2% of statements in consensus/istanbul/validator/random |
Codecov ReportPatch coverage:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2117 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 54.30% 55.38% +1.08%
==========================================
Files 692 675 -17
Lines 115642 113702 -1940
==========================================
+ Hits 62795 62971 +176
+ Misses 49014 46906 -2108
+ Partials 3833 3825 -8
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
a8a958f
to
9db6420
Compare
48e07c3
to
442ba82
Compare
0abbcad
to
d098d42
Compare
540a483
to
809a9eb
Compare
809a9eb
to
31e73ac
Compare
The approach is not beautiful, but the only solution I see where we don't have to inject the EVM into all jump table definitions.
31e73ac
to
031ec1d
Compare
031ec1d
to
2b8a457
Compare
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.
I think that we have a possibility of a refactor there. But other than that, the PR looks good
Description
Draft implementation for celo-org/celo-proposals#367
Tested
Related issues
Backwards compatibility
Changes introduced at hardfork.