Francisco Giordano
Francisco Giordano
This is spam, there is a lot of spam in this repo sadly. 😕
I'm implementing an assembler and the syntax I'm using is: - `DUPN 33` encodes as `e6 20` (note the difference with your example, see below) - `SWAPN 17` encodes as...
That's fine, I think the use of spacing can vary but it seems important to have numbers with a consistent meaning across tools. By the way I think your other...
How are you planning to represent RJUMP and RJUMPV? I think you will run into issues there because they can't be made into a single word? If you're not able...
>So `SWAP2&3` swaps items 2 and 3 and is encoded `e800`. The thing is that with this syntax this operation `SWAP2&3` would be equivalent to `SWAP1 SWAP2 SWAP1`, it seems...
> I think the real problem is the official opcode name, being 2-indexed. If you mean the original SWAPn series of opcodes, yes, maybe SWAPn and DUPn should've been numbered...
Yes I do want the SWAP indices. I believe `EXCHANGE 1 2 = e8 00` is consistent with that?
There are two separate instances of `+ 1`. From the spec: - `EXCHANGE (0xe8)` instruction - read uint8 operand `imm` - `n = imm >> 4 + 1`, `m =...
I think we might have a disagreement about the meaning of `EXCHANGE[n,m]` but the choice seems pretty clear for `SWAPn&m` right?
> though it is not 100% clear how this could be exploited and what the consequences would be It is possible to create a user op where `executionCalldata` appears "valid"...