Add mapping key identification to format #37
Merged
Conversation
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
ekpyron
reviewed
Aug 7, 2023
Co-authored-by: Daniel <[email protected]>
cameel
reviewed
Aug 23, 2023
| #### Mapping key identification | ||
|
|
||
| The value of this field (when present) is a dictionary with (some of) the following fields: | ||
| * `isMappingHash`: A boolean that identifies whether the opcode is computing a hash for a mapping. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a big vague, but I'm assuming only a single opcode that returns the final result should be marked? I.e. you're not interested in the whole sequence of opcodes that are involved in a high-level operation of indexing a mapping, only the final step giving you the hash, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, that's what I meant, sorry, likely that should be clarified.
Of course, there's one big exception to that statement, which is the case of mapping computations that themselves involve a hash at an earlier step (as can happen in Vyper). In that case the earlier SHA3 instruction should also be marked, but as a prehash instead.
gnidan
approved these changes
Aug 30, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
A quick stab at what mapping key information might look like in the format. Intended to be open to future expansion. Figured for different mapping hash formats, it makes more sense to just have an enumeration (that can be expanded in the future) rather than trying to specify them in some sort of DSL. :P There's not just one out there, Solidity and Vyper do things a bit differently here!
(Not sure if "prefix" and "postfix" are intuitive enough, arguably those should be swapped, or they could just be renamed to something less ambiguous.)
I'm assuming this is only used on SHA3 instructions. Potentially one might want to allow some way to mark other sorts of hashes were those ever used for this purpose, but, I figure, there's no need to go addressing that unless someone actually does it, which seems unlikely.
Closes #35.