This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 6, 2020. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
gas_limit for blocks, mined by Parity will be divisible by 37 #4154
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
b9c4a64
gas_limit for new blocks will divide evenly by 13
svyatonik b2538ad
Merge branch 'master' into block_identification
svyatonik 6ab5e6f
increased PARITY_GAS_LIMIT_DETERMINANT to 37
svyatonik e8c3706
separate method for marking mined block
svyatonik d6f57ec
debug_asserts(gas_limit within protocol range)
svyatonik e7a142f
round_block_gas_limit method is now static
svyatonik fdd6bfc
made round_block_gas_limit free-function
svyatonik dae18c4
multiplier->multiple [ci skip]
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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 think it would make more sense to have
max(total_upper_limit, ..
(I know it wasn't like this in previous implementation, but still it would make sense)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.
If I change this to
max(total_upper_limit, ..
it will always stick to the upper_limit:max(upper_limit, lower_limit + something) = uper_limit
So this definitely changes the logic significantly and in strange way :)
Maybe you mean
max(total_lower_limit, ...
- I see that this is logical. However:max(N, N + M), where N && M are U256 are always larger than N (let's omit overflows)
Previously it wasn't there, because there were no
total_lower_limit
&& it is an extra-op, but now everything is known && I could easily change this, if this is what you meant. Just ping me