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

Errata: EIP-2200 change variable name SLOAD_GAS to SSTORE_DIRTY_GAS #2526

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

bobsummerwill
Copy link

44feb98
#2514 (comment)

Wei has withdrawn his proposal, but clarifying these variable names, and that EIP2200 and EIP1884 are not coupled is still important for ETC, though the misspecification does not affect ETH. The "fix" has already been merged into Parity-Ethereum, Geth and Multi-Geth:

ethereum/go-ethereum#20646
openethereum/parity-ethereum#11474

I am unsure whether Final EIPs can be corrected in this way within the EIP process.
I do not see why not, if the changes are clarifying the specification and not resulting in any changes of consensus for ETH.

When opening a pull request to submit a new EIP, please use the suggested template: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/eip-template.md

We have a GitHub bot that automatically merges some PRs. It will merge yours immediately if certain criteria are met:

  • The PR edits only existing draft PRs.
  • The build passes.
  • Your GitHub username or email address is listed in the 'author' header of all affected PRs, inside .
  • If matching on email address, the email address is the one publicly listed on your GitHub profile.

44feb98
#2514 (comment)

Wei has withdrawn his proposal, but clarifying these variable names, and that EIP2200 and EIP1884 are not coupled is still important for ETC, though the misspecification does not affect ETH.  The "fix" has already been merged into Parity-Ethereum, Geth and Multi-Geth:

ethereum/go-ethereum#20646
openethereum/parity-ethereum#11474

I am unsure whether Final EIPs can be corrected in this way within the EIP process.
I do not see why not, if the changes are clarifying the specification and not resulting in any changes of consensus for ETH.
@GregTheGreek
Copy link
Contributor

GregTheGreek commented Feb 20, 2020

Please also add require: 1885 for consistency. EIP-1885 and EIP-2200 economically require one another.

ETC has to make other assumptions around these gas pricing by removing eip-1885

@soc1c
Copy link
Contributor

soc1c commented Feb 21, 2020

@GregTheGreek 1884?

@GregTheGreek
Copy link
Contributor

Yes sorry

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 8, 2020

There has been no activity on this pull request for two months. It will be closed in a week if no further activity occurs. If you would like to move this EIP forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label Sep 8, 2020
@axic
Copy link
Member

axic commented Sep 8, 2020

@sorpaas @holiman @vbuterin can you please review this and approve or reject?

@holiman
Copy link
Contributor

holiman commented Sep 8, 2020

I don't have any comment. I don't really see the point of this change, but neither am I opposed to it.

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the stale label Sep 8, 2020
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 7, 2020

There has been no activity on this pull request for two months. It will be closed in a week if no further activity occurs. If you would like to move this EIP forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label Nov 7, 2020
@github-actions
Copy link

This pull request was closed due to inactivity. If you are still pursuing it, feel free to reopen it and respond to any feedback or request a review in a comment.

@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Nov 14, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants