refactor(levm): removed call frame as parameter from certain functions #2645
Conversation
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
Lines of code reportTotal lines added: Detailed view |
EF Tests Comparison
|
Benchmark Results ComparisonPR ResultsBenchmark Results: Factorial
Benchmark Results: Factorial - Recursive
Benchmark Results: Fibonacci
Benchmark Results: ManyHashes
Benchmark Results: BubbleSort
Benchmark Results: ERC20 - Transfer
Benchmark Results: ERC20 - Mint
Benchmark Results: ERC20 - Approval
Main ResultsBenchmark Results: Factorial
Benchmark Results: Factorial - Recursive
Benchmark Results: Fibonacci
Benchmark Results: ManyHashes
Benchmark Results: BubbleSort
Benchmark Results: ERC20 - Transfer
Benchmark Results: ERC20 - Mint
Benchmark Results: ERC20 - Approval
|
SDartayet
force-pushed
the
call-frame-parameter-refactor
branch
from
4ee8c2f to
3791861
Compare
JereSalo
reviewed
May 6, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- I think it's best to rename
current_call_frametoexecuted_call_framein scenarios in which the callframe has already been executed. Like inhandle_opcode_result. - To be honest, I actually think that it is a little bit more clear if we pop the callframe in
run_executionand send it as parameter, otherwise it is confusing when seeingself.current_call_frame_mut()being called without knowing the callframe was popped. call_frame_to_executeis not a bad name but may be misleading. In that context maybeparent_call_frameis a more accurate name and the executed one could beexecuted_call_frame.
My take on this is that maybe the best thing to do is leave the callframe as argument in those functions so that the popping of the callframe is clear in run_execution (so that the execution flow is more clear) and only change the names of the callframes to the ones suggested: parent_call_frame and executed_call_frame.
This is just my opinion, maybe I'm biased and I don't see the decrease of complexity in this PR. Perhaps it should be also reviewed by somebody else.
|
This was closed because it added unwanted complexity. Some things will be implemented in another PRs, like name improvements and maybe some comments explaining confusing parts of the code regarding to callframes. |
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.
Motivation
Simplify some function calls by removing unnecessary parameters and make the code of the handlers a bit more readable.
Description
The current call frame was being passed as a parameter to certain function calls in the VM. This removes it in favor of using the VM method. Some variables are also renamed for further clarity, and the responsability of popping the current call frame from the stack is delegated to the handle_return_call and handle_return_create methods (where both the call frame that has just been executed, and the one to be returned to, are needed).
Resolves #2542 and #2569