Sergei Shulepov
Sergei Shulepov
Same here, even after `cargo clean`.
That sounds like a really interesting use-case! I'd be down to accept patches, but only if they don't pessimise the general use case and don't add too much complexity!
Less invasive approach sounds better to me! Although, I am wondering, can we get away with zero modification, i.e. by leveraging bytecode instrumentation? We could insert calls in the prologue...
> Although it would be fun to write a contract that pays out when someone mines it with ARM instead of x86. Might be good for an ARM node bounty!...
10-15% is a very good figure actually! This is basically a trade-off and we can easily get more overhead than we save by compacting the bytecode. What we might want...
> Maybe it's better not to produce a second bytecode, but to instead produce a mix of new/enriched flow control instructions along with references to the original bytecode. Can you...
Related: - https://github.com/paritytech/parity-wasm/issues/135 - https://github.com/paritytech/parity-wasm/pull/154 - https://github.com/yurydelendik/wasmparser.rs/pull/45
That is very good idea actually! Why? Because result of invoking of a function might yield only two outcomes: - return a result - trap However, the docs at the...
First step to implement this is in #29
Hello, @bddap ! I'm very sorry for the delay and for that I missed your comment. Yeah, it is a good start. But we can go beyond that. For example,...