evmasm test case

[cameel]

Adds a new custom test case that accepts EVM assembly as input, which allows inspecting the results of assembly import and evmasm optimizer. It should replace the Boost-based optimizer tests from test/libevmasm/Optimiser.cpp as well as the command-line tests for assembly import.

The test case can take the assembly in JSON format as well as a simplified text format that can be easily post-processed into JSON ("plain assembly"). Plain assembly is currently very limited, but should still be enough to cover #15935. It allows using all opcodes as well as tags and jumps. It does not yet support subassemblies, data, metadata or the less common types of assembly items, but the format is designed to accommodate them and I'm going to add them in subsequent PRs.

[cameel]

The test case can easily be extended support EOF, but we need to implement assembly import for EOF first.

[cameel]

It's quite annoying that the JSON format accepts only hex numbers here but without the 0x prefix. On the other hand for tag it accepts both and the ones without 0x are actually decimal.

[clonker]

Didn't find anything wrong, just a few nitpicks and suggestions

[moh-eulith]

@cameel question about the settings: I'm trying to change the expected runs, but it's not working as I expect. What am I doing wrong here?

PUSH 0x0
PUSH 0x1
PUSH 0x0123456789ABCDEF
PUSH 0xffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
// ====
// optimizationPreset: none
// optimizer.constantOptimizer: true
// optimizer.expectedExecutionsPerDeployment: 2000000
// outputs: Assembly,Opcodes
// ----
// Assembly:
//   0x00
//   0x01
//   0x0123456789abcdef
//   not(0x00)
// Opcodes: PUSH0 PUSH1 0x1 PUSH8 0x123456789ABCDEF PUSH0 NOT

(at a high run, the last one should be a PUSH32)

[cameel]

@moh-eulith It's because the top-level object contains the initcode, which runs only once so the compiler uses expectedExecutionsPerDeployment of 1 for it. The value you specify is only used for the runtime objects. Basically, you need to put your code in a sub-object. You can't do that using this simplified syntax yet, but that's the next extension I'm working on. Will come in a PR once I merge this.

Right now it's still possible to test this, but you have to use the full JSON syntax (see settings_optimizer_expected_executions_per_deployment.asmjson).