r0qs

> Oh, so we still have gitter notifications for some of this? > > I was thinking more about the failure notification e-mail I get from nightly every day. Now...

Thanks @ustas-eth. Could you please just squash the commits and rebase with the `develop` branch? :)

> @r0qs I did, but I'm not sure if the result is what you expected. I'm not very proficient with git :') haha no problem, I fixed it for you...

Thanks @bshastry. I reduced the example to this: ```solidity pragma solidity >=0.0; contract C { struct S { mapping(uint224 => int64) b; } function f() external returns(bool) {} fallback() external...

> Yeah, if it's not already there. Our Python tests require it and they work so I assume it's there. They are not, most of the python packages are installed...

This CI error: https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/ethereum/solidity/33577/workflows/8c3156a6-35f8-4aeb-b6e3-18f80f4cb6cf/jobs/1512784 is because the test file name is wrong, see: `test/libsolidity/syntaxTests/specialFunctions/encodeCall_fail_args_internal_function_pointer_for_uint copy.sol`. There is a `_copy` in the filename of this test https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/pull/14974/files#diff-41100eaa90ef551806d2098a1c4f80fe0f86d9587edbfb6f1161c6d543f1f92dR1.

Benchmarks results: - `develop` branch (commit [272892e9](https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/commit/272892e98e3f0f88be8aca063aad84008eadfad3)): | File | Pipeline | Bytecode size | Time | Exit code | |----------------------|----------|--------------:|---------:|----------:| | `verifier.sol` | legacy | 4874 bytes | 0.13...

Hi @z0r0z, thanks for the question. However, the `payable` modifier can also be applied to functions with `external` visibility. So, I don't see a clear advantage in not explicitly stating...

> * [ ] [EIP-4788: Beacon block root in the EVM](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-4788) > TODO: verify if there's anything for us to do here. Regarding this item, I did some research, and...

> As for the syntax tests failing on `test/libsolidity/syntaxTests/experimental/builtin/builtin_type_definition.sol`: that's not an issue of this PR, but of the test itself. It's generally invalid to declare a variable of type...