Merged
Conversation
Member
Author
shemnon
reviewed
Nov 4, 2019
Co-Authored-By: Danno Ferrin <[email protected]>
axic
reviewed
Nov 4, 2019
axic
reviewed
Nov 4, 2019
EIPS/eip-2327.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Motivation | ||
| <!--The motivation is critical for EIPs that want to change the Ethereum protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem that the EIP solves. EIP submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.--> | ||
| The `BEGINDATA` opcode has been suggested before as part of the EIP `Subroutines and Static Jumps for the EVM` [EIP-615](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-615.md) as a way to determine the position of jumptables in contract bytecode. It is here introduced in its own right in order to exclude data from the JUMPDEST analysis of contracts, making it impossible to jump to data. This makes it easier for static analysis tools to analyse contracts, allows disassemblers, chain explorers and debuggers to not display data as a mess of INVALID opcodes and may even provide a marginal improvement in performance. Additionally, it paves the way for suggestions such as [EIP 1712](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/1712) to disallow unused opcodes, jumptables [EIP-615](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-615.md) and speculative proposals to disallow for deployment of contracts with stack usage violations. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please use the canonical URL (https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-XX) whenever possible.
axic
reviewed
Nov 4, 2019
EIPS/eip-2327.md
Outdated
| ## Rationale | ||
| <!--The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is supported in other languages. The rationale may also provide evidence of consensus within the community, and should discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.--> | ||
| The byte `0xb6` was chosen to align with [EIP-615](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-615.md). | ||
| The choice to STOP if `BEGINDATA` is encountered is somewhat arbitrary. An alternative would be to `THROW`. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is no such thing as "throw" defined anywhere.
axic
reviewed
Nov 4, 2019
EIPS/eip-2327.md
Outdated
| ## Rationale | ||
| <!--The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is supported in other languages. The rationale may also provide evidence of consensus within the community, and should discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.--> | ||
| The byte `0xb6` was chosen to align with [EIP-615](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-615.md). | ||
| The choice to STOP if `BEGINDATA` is encountered is somewhat arbitrary. An alternative would be to `THROW`. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It may make it nicer to read if all JUMPDEST and STOP opcodes are escaped.
axic
reviewed
Nov 4, 2019
EIPS/eip-2327.md
Outdated
| ## Test Cases | ||
| <!--Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for EIPs that are affecting consensus changes. Other EIPs can choose to include links to test cases if applicable.--> | ||
| Test cases should include: | ||
| 1) A contract which jumps to a destination `X`, where `X` has a pc value higher than the `BEGINDATA` opcode, and the byte at `X` is `0x5b`. This should fail with a `BAD_JUMPDEST`. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please use BAD_JUMPDEST or BAD_JUMP_DESTINATION consistently.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Albeit there is no such error clearly defined in EVM semantics, I'd still opt to keep that in the EIP (for now).
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am referring to the status codes as defined by EVMC https://evmc.ethereum.org/group__EVMC.html#ga4c0be97f333c050ff45321fcaa34d920. Even if they haven't been universally accepted, they do provide the most systematic treatment of exceptions I'm aware of.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm aware of them and glad to see them utilised, they haven't been referenced yet (apart from #2003).
MrChico
force-pushed
the
master
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e4571da to
832f229
Compare
axic
approved these changes
Nov 5, 2019
Member
axic
left a comment
axic
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is sound enough for a draft.
Member
Author
|
Thanks @axic for the review |
ilanolkies
pushed a commit
to ilanolkies/EIPs
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 12, 2019
* Draft EIP: BEGINDATA opcode * EIP-BEGINDATA: Add discussions-to link * use eip number 2327 * Update EIPS/eip-2327.md Co-Authored-By: Danno Ferrin <[email protected]> * eip-2327: Update formatting and clarify CODECOPY behaviour
MadeofTin
pushed a commit
to MadeofTin/EIPs
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 13, 2019
* Draft EIP: BEGINDATA opcode * EIP-BEGINDATA: Add discussions-to link * use eip number 2327 * Update EIPS/eip-2327.md Co-Authored-By: Danno Ferrin <[email protected]> * eip-2327: Update formatting and clarify CODECOPY behaviour
tkstanczak
pushed a commit
to tkstanczak/EIPs
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 7, 2020
* Draft EIP: BEGINDATA opcode * EIP-BEGINDATA: Add discussions-to link * use eip number 2327 * Update EIPS/eip-2327.md Co-Authored-By: Danno Ferrin <[email protected]> * eip-2327: Update formatting and clarify CODECOPY behaviour
Arachnid
pushed a commit
to Arachnid/EIPs
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 6, 2021
* Draft EIP: BEGINDATA opcode * EIP-BEGINDATA: Add discussions-to link * use eip number 2327 * Update EIPS/eip-2327.md Co-Authored-By: Danno Ferrin <[email protected]> * eip-2327: Update formatting and clarify CODECOPY behaviour
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
Waiting for EIP number to be assigned. Will post link to discussions after having opened this PR.