Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 17, 2025. It is now read-only.

Conversation

@chfast
Copy link
Member

@chfast chfast commented Feb 29, 2024

No description provided.

@chfast chfast force-pushed the code_in_msg branch 3 times, most recently from c3499c2 to a1df1d1 Compare March 13, 2024 18:51
@chfast chfast marked this pull request as ready for review March 13, 2024 20:36
@chfast chfast requested review from axic and gumb0 March 13, 2024 20:36
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 13, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 97.22222% with 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 93.50%. Comparing base (f89284f) to head (c818948).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #705   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.49%   93.50%           
=======================================
  Files          25       25           
  Lines        3861     3865    +4     
  Branches      396      396           
=======================================
+ Hits         3610     3614    +4     
  Misses        139      139           
  Partials      112      112           

/// The same as
/// execute(const evmc_host_interface&, evmc_host_context*, evmc_revision,
/// const evmc_message&, const uint8_t*, size_t),
/// but without providing the Host context and interface.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Update comment above

{
use evmc_vm::EvmcVm;

// TODO: context is optional in case of the "precompiles" capability
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why is this removed?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wasn't able to translate the check easily and also not sure if this check isn't to heavy to be included in the bindings (unless this helps Rust translation somehow).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe TODO is worth to leave? It seems to point to something that is not yet implemented in bindings, but might be useful.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think the check for instance/msg null should be removed. This is the place it ensures it won't be null.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants