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

Add opcodes to "Lists" documentation #764

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 29, 2023
Merged

Conversation

shemnon
Copy link
Contributor

@shemnon shemnon commented May 25, 2023

Add a summary of used, pending, and proposed opcodes for the EVM.
Also adds a list describing each 16 opcode block,

Cute Animal Picture

<!--Put a link to a cute animal picture inside the parenthesis-->

Add a summary of used, pending, and proposed opcodes for the EVM
Also adds a list describing each 16 opcode block,
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Patch and project coverage have no change.

Comparison is base (a620b0a) 74.01% compared to head (0a2bb2c) 74.01%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #764   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   74.01%   74.01%           
=======================================
  Files         570      570           
  Lines       31557    31557           
=======================================
  Hits        23356    23356           
  Misses       8201     8201           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 74.01% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

* add fully expanded chart to pending opcodes.
@shemnon
Copy link
Contributor Author

shemnon commented Jun 5, 2023

@SamWilsn @lightclient can I get a review on this?

Copy link
Contributor

@petertdavies petertdavies left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable. In the long term it would be nice to auto generate from the specs, but we are nowhere near that at the moment.

@shemnon
Copy link
Contributor Author

shemnon commented Jun 5, 2023

opcodes.md and opcode-blocks.md could be auto generated from the spec and other pages, but I think the more uniquely useful page is the pending-opcodes.md, where opcodes that are targeting the next release are laid out, and it could serve as an aid in final selection of opcode numbers.

chfast added a commit to ethereum/evmone that referenced this pull request Jun 18, 2023
Follows the opcode re-assignment of proposed instructions specified in
ethereum/execution-specs#764.
chfast added a commit to ethereum/evmone that referenced this pull request Jun 19, 2023
Follows the opcode re-assignment of proposed instructions specified in
ethereum/execution-specs#764.
chfast added a commit to ethereum/evmone that referenced this pull request Jun 19, 2023
Follows the opcode re-assignment of proposed instructions specified in
ethereum/execution-specs#764.
chfast added a commit to ethereum/evmone that referenced this pull request Jun 19, 2023
Follows the opcode re-assignment of proposed instructions specified in
ethereum/execution-specs#764.
Co-authored-by: Paweł Bylica <chfast@gmail.com>
Copy link
Member

@chfast chfast left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We have applied changes in ethereum/evmone#665 and we are happy with it.

I'm only slightly concerned that there is some duplication of information in these 3 tables.

chfast added a commit to ethereum/evmone that referenced this pull request Jun 21, 2023
Follows the opcode re-assignment of proposed instructions specified in
ethereum/execution-specs#764.
@SamWilsn SamWilsn merged commit 8b73624 into ethereum:master Jun 29, 2023
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.

6 participants