Skip to content

baseline: Improve code analysis API #941

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
chfast merged 3 commits into from
Sep 12, 2024
Merged

baseline: Improve code analysis API #941

chfast merged 3 commits into from
Sep 12, 2024

Conversation

@chfast
Copy link
Member

@chfast chfast commented Jul 1, 2024

Passing the evmc_revision to the code analysis is too fine-grained for this public API. On Ethereum Mainnet EOF can be always enabled, but the options is left for other chain configurations.

@chfast chfast requested review from gumb0 and pdobacz July 1, 2024 09:52
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 1, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 94.52055% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 93.89%. Comparing base (7a46e72) to head (6e2f5d9).
Report is 4 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
test/bench/helpers.hpp 0.00% 4 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files 
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #941   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.89%   93.89%           
=======================================
  Files         146      147    +1     
  Lines       15487    15507   +20     
=======================================
+ Hits        14541    14561   +20     
  Misses        946      946
Flag Coverage Δ
eof_execution_spec_tests 17.49% <58.90%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
ethereum_tests 27.72% <39.72%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
ethereum_tests_silkpre 19.42% <27.53%> (-0.03%) ⬇️
execution_spec_tests 19.00% <30.13%> (-0.03%) ⬇️
unittests 89.00% <94.52%> (+0.01%) ⬆️

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

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
lib/evmone/advanced_analysis.hpp 96.00% <100.00%> (-0.16%) ⬇️
lib/evmone/advanced_execution.cpp 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/evmone/baseline.hpp 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/evmone/baseline_analysis.cpp 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/evmone/baseline_execution.cpp 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/evmone/execution_state.hpp 94.33% <100.00%> (-0.49%) ⬇️
lib/evmone/instructions.hpp 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/evmone/instructions_calls.cpp 99.52% <100.00%> (ø)
test/unittests/baseline_analysis_test.cpp 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
test/unittests/execution_state_test.cpp 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 1 more

@chfast chfast force-pushed the baseline/code_api branch from f8ac976 to cb8bbd8 Compare July 4, 2024 13:23
gumb0
gumb0 reviewed Jul 5, 2024
View reviewed changes
@chfast chfast marked this pull request as draft July 21, 2024 11:12
@chfast
Copy link
Member Author

chfast commented Jul 21, 2024

Converted to draft, because I have better idea...

@chfast chfast self-assigned this Sep 12, 2024
@chfast chfast marked this pull request as ready for review September 12, 2024 09:14
pdobacz
pdobacz approved these changes Sep 12, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@pdobacz pdobacz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, only minor nits

@chfast chfast changed the title baseline: Simplify code analysis API baseline: Improve code analysis API Sep 12, 2024
@chfast
Copy link
Member Author

chfast commented Sep 12, 2024

I changed the name for the "full unmodified code" to raw_code. Any better ideas?

  • raw_code
  • account_code
  • original_code
  • full_code
  • container_code

@pdobacz
Copy link
Member

pdobacz commented Sep 12, 2024 •
edited
Loading

I changed the name for the "full unmodified code" to raw_code. Any better ideas?

* `raw_code`

* `account_code`

* `original_code`

* `full_code`

* `container_code`

code_bytes or code_binary? All the _code versions imply it's code, while it is a something containing code. But raw_code was ok when I was reading through, I just needed a moment of hesitation and the presence of executable_code nearby. Maybe also just container or container_bytes/binary

gumb0
gumb0 reviewed Sep 12, 2024
View reviewed changes
lib/evmone/baseline_execution.cpp Outdated
{
auto vm = static_cast<VM*>(c_vm);
const bytes_view container{code, code_size};
const auto eof_enabled = rev >= EVMC_PRAGUE;
Copy link
Member

@gumb0 gumb0 Sep 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you use REV_EOF1 here?

Copy link
Member Author

@chfast chfast Sep 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Added as instr::REV_EOF1 but revision handling can be improved further. I wonder if we can make the revision opaque for EVMC.

chfast
chfast commented Sep 12, 2024
View reviewed changes
@chfast
baseline: Simplify EOF handling in code analysis API
e90ea11 
For code analysis context only pass a `bool` value if EOF is enabled.
This was the only information the analysis extracted from the previously
used full EVM revision.
@chfast
baseline: Improve CodeAnalysis API
5b63165 
Expose more information from the `CodeAnalysis` class via new methods.
Make fields private and hide some implementation details.
@chfast
eof: Serve EOF data section from CodeAnalysis
6e2f5d9 
Take the EOF data section contents from the `CodeAnalysis` object
instead of complicating the `ExecutionState`.
@chfast chfast merged commit 1004496 into master Sep 12, 2024
@chfast chfast deleted the baseline/code_api branch September 12, 2024 15:12
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@pdobacz pdobacz pdobacz approved these changes

@gumb0 gumb0 gumb0 approved these changes

Assignees

@chfast chfast

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@chfast @pdobacz @gumb0