-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 56
refactor(levm): use ethrex account types #2614
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
Closed
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
…nto levm/cache_rollback
Lines of code reportTotal lines added: Detailed view
|
Benchmark Results ComparisonPR ResultsBenchmark Results: Factorial
Benchmark Results: Factorial - Recursive
Benchmark Results: Fibonacci
Benchmark Results: ManyHashes
Benchmark Results: BubbleSort
Benchmark Results: ERC20 - Transfer
Benchmark Results: ERC20 - Mint
Benchmark Results: ERC20 - Approval
Main ResultsBenchmark Results: Factorial
Benchmark Results: Factorial - Recursive
Benchmark Results: Fibonacci
Benchmark Results: ManyHashes
Benchmark Results: BubbleSort
Benchmark Results: ERC20 - Transfer
Benchmark Results: ERC20 - Mint
Benchmark Results: ERC20 - Approval
|
EF Tests Comparison
|
Closing this PR because there are a lot of unrelated commits. Replaced it with #2629 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Motivation
Description
Now we use the structs of the L1 client but they are different from the ones that we used so I had to make changes:
get_account_info
is nowget_account
because we also need the code of the account and AccountInfo has thecode_hash
only.StorageSlot
that had thecurrent_value
andoriginal_value
of a storage slot (original_value
being the value pre-tx) I had to make some changes to logic and store those original values at the beginning of the transaction into an auxiliaryHashMap
. The solution was the simplest just to make it work but I want to see if I can improve that in a reasonable way so that we don't clone all the storage at the beginning of the transaction, which, if we had a big cache, would be expensive.Added new function
get_original_storage()
Closes #issue_number