Bit packing step 1 #46
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Changes to gas cost
🧾 Summary (20% most significant diffs)
Full diff report 👇
|
LCOV of commit
|
PierrickGT
requested changes
Dec 11, 2023
src/Protocol.sol
Outdated
| @@ -527,10 +546,10 @@ contract Protocol is IProtocol, ContinuousIndexing, ERC712 { | |||
| if (penaltyBase_ == 0) return; | |||
|
|
|||
| // Save penalization interval to not double charge for the same missed periods again | |||
| _penalizedUntilTimestamps[minter_] = penalizedUntil_; | |||
| _minterBasics[minter_].penalizedUntilTimestamp = UIntMath.safe48(penalizedUntil_); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This check should happen when computing penalizedUntil_ in _getPenaltyBaseAndTimeForMissedCollateralUpdates() and this function should return an uint48.
Suggested change
| _minterBasics[minter_].penalizedUntilTimestamp = UIntMath.safe48(penalizedUntil_); | |
| _minterBasics[minter_].penalizedUntilTimestamp = penalizedUntil_; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
disagree on this one. It is used once, compared to _getPrincipalValue. If this function returns uint48 , then all internal functions should accept and return uintxx for consistency.
The simplicity of approach working with uint256 and casting to exact data type when storing won't exist anymore and most likely will require readjustment of public interfaces too.
Co-authored-by: Pierrick Turelier <pierrick@turelier.com>
Co-authored-by: Pierrick Turelier <pierrick@turelier.com>
deluca-mike
previously requested changes
Dec 12, 2023
src/Protocol.sol
Outdated
| _pendingCollateralRetrievals[msg.sender][retrievalId_] = collateral_; | ||
| uint128 safeCollateral_ = UIntMath.safe128(collateral_); | ||
| _minterBasics[msg.sender].totalPendingRetrievals += safeCollateral_; | ||
| _pendingCollateralRetrievals[msg.sender][UIntMath.safe48(retrievalId_)] = safeCollateral_; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The overflow check is cheap, but I agree with @PierrickGT. if we overflow the retrieval id's, then the system is broken anyway.
PierrickGT
approved these changes
Dec 12, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Bit-packing obvious things to get easy gains.
Picked approach - interfaces and interactions in
uint256, internal storage fields -uintxx. Add safe conversions via introducedUintMathlibrary.