Address.functionCall internal call stack simplification#3468
Merged
Conversation
Collaborator
|
Thank you @ZumZoom Do have you measured the gas savings? If so, can you share the numbers? |
Contributor
Author
|
Here are gas reports from relevant tests. TLDR: -54 gas on call, -2814 gas on deploy Master PR |
Collaborator
|
@ZumZoom Thank for these number. That is great ! |
Amxx
approved these changes
Jun 16, 2022
Closed
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
It is a bit cheaper to call
functionCallWithValuedirectly than via extra intermediate internal call. It also allows to save a bit on contract size in case offunctionCall(address,bytes,string)not being used anywhere in the contract.PR Checklist