This repository has been archived by the owner on May 23, 2023. It is now read-only.
Mark assembly as memory safe
#107
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This improves codegen in the compiler and reduces the chance of untraceable internal codegen errors when dealing with stack variables that can't be referenced with an instruction. Also, it removes unused functions in `BytesLib` to reduce code surface.
JoeHowarth
approved these changes
Feb 27, 2023
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This separates out changes that don't significantly alter the code of
BytesLibfrom #81.This improves codegen in the compiler and reduces the chance of untraceable internal codegen errors when dealing with stack variables that can't be referenced with an instruction.
I've been running into these codegen errors quite a bit while tweaking forge tests but this seems to eliminate them.
In other news, this shaves off 1KB from the contract bytecode so that's a good thing.
The bad news is that marking these sections as memory safe is unsafe to do if they don't actually respect Solidity's memory model. Both me and @nonergodic have taken a look at the assembly code being used and we think that it's memory safe.