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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
EIP 4844 (part 2) #14759
EIP 4844 (part 2) #14759
Changes from all commits
81268e3
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure I really like this approach - these are separate cases for a reason - why would you combine them and then perform another check as to what the function kind is? Of course, it's easy to see what's going on once you read the code, but it's confusing at first glance - initially, I thought they may have the same opcode and use the difficulty/prevrandao mechanism based on the fork, which is obviously not the case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, this one is short enough that it would have been clearer as a separate handler.
Still, when the code is longer this approach makes sense. The handler in
IRGeneratorForStatements.cpp
was actually the opposite case - there merging it with the other cases helps reduce duplication.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I initially implemented them separately, but as pointed out in #14759 (comment) there are instances where multiple built-ins are handled within the same case, both in
IRGeneratorForStatements
andExpressionCompiler
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Which is why I didn't complain about it myself, but @nikola-matic does have a point here :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@r0qs we seem to have wormholed ourselves into a parallel universe where Kamil doesn't complain, and I do. :D