-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 322
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
Update tests (Mark non returning functions) #1285
Conversation
804e751
to
e3cf761
Compare
@@ -28,7 +27,7 @@ EOF1_Execution: | |||
balance: 0 | |||
# Basic valid EOF code | |||
# code section: ':yul { sstore(0, 1) stop() }' | |||
code: ':raw 0xef000101000402000100060300000000000002600160005500' | |||
code: ':raw 0xef000101000402000100060400000000000002600160005500' |
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.
This file not updated yet?
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.
Good catch, this file was not updated to change first code section output to non-returning function. It is interesting because, evmone is filling the test correctly... this means... it is executing this invalid code in pre-state. Currently there is a pre-state EOF code validation when running the tests, but there is not validation when filling the tests. I have updated the file and refilled the tests. Also submitted this PR in the evmone repo in order to validate eof code in pre-state when filling tests.
6886b60
to
ba5003c
Compare
ba5003c
to
3fdb92c
Compare
3fdb92c
to
e167c28
Compare
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.
Looks good to me. If it runs OK, I think it's OK.
is this :raw code generated by some script? no way to make it more readable? |
Which one are you referring to? There are often comments with assembly or pseudo-yul code corresponding to bytecode. But maybe not in Ori's tests... |
Depends on #1238