Skip to content
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

Tightened the supported versions of solidity #831

Closed

Conversation

AntoineRondelet
Copy link

While using slither to analyze some contracts written with solidity 0.8 (see here), I got an error (i.e. ERROR:root:unresolved reference to identifier vk.slot ) related to the x.slot syntax introduced in solidity 0.7 as a replacement of the syntax x_slot to retrieve the slot pointed to by the variable x.

See the difference between the solidity 0.7 doc and the solidity 0.6 doc for further details.

That is somewhat confusing, provided that the README states that contracts written with solidity >= 0.4 can be analyzed with the tool, however, I realized (beyond the error above) that the syntax for solidity 0.7 is not yet fully supported: #559

As a consequence, this PR clarifies which solidity versions are currently supported, as a way to remove potential future issues for other users.

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Apr 22, 2021

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@montyly
Copy link
Member

montyly commented Apr 23, 2021

Hi @AntoineRondelet.

We support Solidity 0.7, but it looks like we missed the .slot change from the changelog. #833 will fix that.

Let us know if you have other issues with Slither

@AntoineRondelet
Copy link
Author

Hi @AntoineRondelet.

We support Solidity 0.7, but it looks like we missed the .slot change from the changelog. #833 will fix that.

Let us know if you have other issues with Slither

Thanks @montyly, no problem. Looking forward to #833 being merged then :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants