Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

More TX_SKIP edge cases #1532

Open
OlivierBBB opened this issue Nov 21, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #1734
Open

More TX_SKIP edge cases #1532

OlivierBBB opened this issue Nov 21, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #1734
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@OlivierBBB
Copy link
Collaborator

OlivierBBB commented Nov 21, 2024

TX_SKIP message calls

The spec says that one should keep warmths for TX_SKIP as they are. I wonder what that would mean e.g. if

  • sender is a precompile (does our testing environment even allow this ? or would we need to produce a signature for the (unknown) private key of a precompile) ?
  • coinbase is a precompile (those are warm by default)

N.B. Recipients may not be precompiles.

source #1510 (comment)

TX_SKIP deployment transactions

If we don't have them yet we should add tests for TX_SKIP with trivial deployments. We can play the same games of

  • sender is coinbase
  • (deployment address) is coinbase
  • coinbase is a precompile

source #1510 (comment)

@letypequividelespoubelles
Copy link
Collaborator

@OlivierBBB for sender is a precompile we have a constraint in TX_SKIP that the sender is NOT a precompile

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants