Upgraded Q -> 2 from #314 [1702561397269]

[c4-judge]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue #314 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows:

[NC‑05]: Calling precompile contracts with delegatecall has inconsistent results
It is possible to call the precompile contracts with delegatecall. The results for the user vary depending on if an inner precompileCall() is made.

The opcode used precompileCall() will revert if the current address is not a system contract. Since msg.sender in a delegatecall will be the user contract it should be that the call to precompileCall() reverts.

However, the exact specifics of when precompileCall() will revert are not located on the contracts in scope and exist inside the VM. This assumes the desired functionality that precompileCall() will check the msg.sender rather than the address which contains the bytecode.

So, if we call EcAdd or EcMul with valid parameters it will succeed since precompileCall() is not triggered. However, if we call EcAdd or EcMul with invalid parameters then the burnGas() function is called and the delegatecall will revert. All other precompiles will fail since they make use of precompileCall().

[c4-judge]

GalloDaSballo marked the issue as duplicate of #174

[c4-judge]

GalloDaSballo marked the issue as partial-25

[GalloDaSballo]

Valid dup

• Correct underlying cause
• Mentions of risk
• 25% -> no coded POC for evm stuff + low detail

[c4-judge]

GalloDaSballo marked the issue as duplicate of #175