You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hello, nowadays it is impossible to compute coverage using foundry for many realistic big contrats, because of a stack too deep error, see foundry-rs#3357 - in summary optimization is deactivated during compilation to be able to compute coverage from sourcemap.
My proposition would be to add an option to release or increase the default stack limit set to 1024 as per yellow paper, this would be a quick fix to compute coverage in any useful cases.
I am not sure how to implement this, as a Rust beginner. I see that it is defined at least in two different places : stack and interpreter. I guess it would also make sense to increase the limit of the call stack, because it could also be likely be impacted by optimization.
What do you think about this proposal?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@jat9292 I believe this is an issue in the solidity compiler, not in revm. This seems to be relevant issue ethereum/solidity#11638
I managed to reproduce the error by running forge coverage on the connext monorepo (https://github.com/connext/monorepo) and it blows up exactly on the compilation step.
Hello, nowadays it is impossible to compute coverage using foundry for many realistic big contrats, because of a stack too deep error, see foundry-rs#3357 - in summary optimization is deactivated during compilation to be able to compute coverage from sourcemap.
My proposition would be to add an option to release or increase the default stack limit set to 1024 as per yellow paper, this would be a quick fix to compute coverage in any useful cases.
I am not sure how to implement this, as a Rust beginner. I see that it is defined at least in two different places : stack and interpreter. I guess it would also make sense to increase the limit of the call stack, because it could also be likely be impacted by optimization.
What do you think about this proposal?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: