Feat/eip articulation #9
Draft
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
Fix v1.8.17
Add ESN support Update params/bootnodes.go
Support Ethersocial network
Renames archive multi-geth-xxx -> ethoxy-multi-geth-xxx for namespacing clarity
This also makes globbing for the deploy steps easier, so we can just use one.
- travis: fix extra hyphen during deploy file globbing
add distribution archives for all tools
Refactors chain configuration and respective feature implementations to use EIP definitions and methods, instead of HardFork names, whenever possible. Doing so attempts to address ambiguity and complexity in chain configuration and feature implementation. Signed-off-by: Isaac Ardis ([email protected])
* NOTE: This is a cherry-picked commit, and has undergone some manual merge conflict resolution. It may not be perfectly perfect yet. The original commit body: Refactors chain configuration and respective feature implementations to use EIP definitions and methods, instead of HardFork names, whenever possible. Doing so attempts to address ambiguity and complexity in chain configuration and feature implementation. Signed-off-by: Isaac Ardis ([email protected]) consensus: fix wrong numbers for blockreward eips IDK how these got off-by-one'd. Weird. params: alphabetize ecip blocks Because I'm anal like that. consensus/ethash: fix mysterious off-by-one reward Same as where the EIP number got incremented down. Weird. params: note about json tag for eip160(F)Block This is a bit of a sticky situation. Solves are either: - use without 'F' here, break pattern, stay backwards compatible for existing multi-geth clients, but incompatible with ETH if they accept proposed changes as-is - use with 'F' here, break backwards compatibility with existing multi-geth clients, but be compatible with ETH as proposed - push change without 'F' to ETH for review, keeping in mind that it makes no sense for them to tangle their code b/c of an establish multi-geth pattern - push change without 'F' for any of the EIP160,161,170 to eth. still breaks pattern for them The root cause of this is that EIP158 namespace was used to symbolize 3 separate EIPs... none of which ended up being named 'EIP158'. Yea. params: fix comment to be right consensus/ethash: fix another damn offbyone increment ... these happened during the cherry-pick. wtf.
This is the remaining not-backwards-compatible Homestead EIP not yet 'feature-fied'. The EIP itself specifies a diverse set of changes, those will be configuration-implemented in the next commit.
…tures implementations
Co-Authored-By: whilei <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: whilei <[email protected]>
This allows for the potential for opcode mechanisms to be defined differently even if they share the same bytecode.
This is akin to 257cf96, allowing variability in precompiled contract mechanisms across network configurations.
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.
Damn, looks like I merged in a lot of shit I don't want... but the conflict resolutions w/ upstream (the important and tedious part) should be valid no matter.
Maybe need to pick some cherries and use the force.
WIP.