New encoding for contract calls #5427

xunilrj · 2024-01-02T12:47:39Z

Description

This PR implements the new encoding for contracts/scripts/predicates. #5512 and #5513

Contract Calls

When the new encoding is turned on using --experimental-new-encoding, contract calls like the example below will be "desugarized" differently now.

let base_asset_id = BASE_ASSET_ID;
let other_contract_id = ContractId::from(0xa38576787f8900d66e6620548b6da8142b8bb4d129b2338609acd121ca126c10);

let test_contract = abi(ContextTesting, other_contract_id.into());
let returned_contract_id = test_contract.get_id { gas: gas, coins: 0, asset_id: BASE_ASSET_ID.value}(1, 2, 3);

and will be transformed to

let base_asset_id = BASE_ASSET_ID;
let other_contract_id = ContractId::from(0xa38576787f8900d66e6620548b6da8142b8bb4d129b2338609acd121ca126c10);

let test_contract = abi(ContextTesting, other_contract_id.into());
let returned_contract_id = contract_call::<ContractId, _>(other_contract_id.into(), "get_id", (1, 2, 3), coins, asset_id, gas);

And the important part is the contract_call function in the std library. This function does all the encoding as necessary and delegates the actual call to an intrinsic function __contract_call. Allowing the protocol to evolve entirely in Sway.

pub fn contract_call<T, TArgs>(contract_id: b256, method_name: str, args: TArgs, coins: u64, asset_id: b256, gas: u64) -> T
where
    TArgs: AbiEncode
{
    let first_parameter = encode(method_name);
    let second_parameter = encode(args);
    let params = encode(
        (
            contract_id,
            asm(a: first_parameter.ptr()) { a: u64 },
            asm(a: second_parameter.ptr()) { a: u64 },
        )
    );
    __contract_call::<T>(params.ptr(), coins, asset_id, gas)
}

Contracts

On the other side, when the flag --expiremental-new-encoding is turned on, the contract specification like the one below is being transformed into all the decoding and encoding necessary.

The mains points are:

The compiler generates a function called __entry that decodes the method name and its arguments. The method is selected with a bunch of ifs at the moment, because we don´t have match for string slices. Then we decode the arguments using the correct type, which is a tuple with all the function arguments, and expand this tuple calling the function;
All the contract functions are converted to global functions prefixed with __contract_method;
Results are encoded and returned using the intrinsic call __retd.

Example:

abi SomeContract {
    fn some_function(a: u64) -> u64;
}

impl SomeContract for Contract {
    fn some_function(a: u64) -> u64 {
        1
    }
}

will be transformed into

fn __entry() {
    let method_name = decode_first_parameter();
    if method_name == "some_function" {
        let args = decode_second_parameter::<(u64,)>();
        let result = __contract_method_some_function(args.0);
        __retd(encode(result));
    }
    __revert(0);
}

Scripts and Predicates

The protocol to call scripts and predicates will also change and will be very similar to contracts. See more above. Now when the flag is turned on, the main function will not be entry point anymore. The compiler will actually generate an __entry function that will decode arguments and encode the result, like contracts.

For example:

fn main(a: u64) -> u64 {
    1
}

will be transformed into

fn __entry() {
    let args = decode_script_data::<(u64,)();
    let result = main(args.0);
    __retd(encode(result));
}

fn main(a: u64) -> u64 {
    1
}

Tests

To facilitate testing this PR introduces three changes to our test harness:

1 - A new parameter can be called to update test output files (abi and storage json). This facilitates when we only want to copy and paste these output files to their respective oracles. Brings the framework closer to a snapshot one.

> cargo r -p test --release -- --update-output-files

2 - Depending on the configuration at test.toml multiple executions of the same test will be scheduled. At the moment, tests that depend on the encoding will run with the --experimental-new-encoding flag automatically. For example:

Testing should_pass/language/main_args/main_args_copy_copy ... ok
Testing should_pass/language/main_args/main_args_copy_copy (New Encoding) ... ok

3 - A new script_data_new_encoding was created because we want to support and run tests with the two encoding for a time. This is also what flags tests to run with the flag on automatically.

Checklist

I have linked to any relevant issues.
I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
I have updated the documentation where relevant (API docs, the reference, and the Sway book).
I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works.
I have added (or requested a maintainer to add) the necessary Breaking* or New Feature labels where relevant.
I have done my best to ensure that my PR adheres to the Fuel Labs Code Review Standards.
I have requested a review from the relevant team or maintainers.

github-actions · 2024-02-15T21:00:51Z

Benchmark for `1ddb756`

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
code_action	5.4±0.21ms	5.2±0.11ms	-3.70%
code_lens	299.0±20.73ns	304.3±9.53ns	+1.77%
compile	3.0±0.05s	3.5±0.06s	+16.67%
completion	4.7±0.10ms	4.7±0.01ms	0.00%
did_change_with_caching	2.9±0.05s	3.4±0.03s	+17.24%
document_symbol	964.6±20.64µs	1018.1±62.98µs	+5.55%
format	89.4±3.63ms	89.6±2.84ms	+0.22%
goto_definition	364.9±5.38µs	361.1±5.14µs	-1.04%
highlight	8.8±0.17ms	8.8±0.17ms	0.00%
hover	552.1±22.25µs	580.3±7.23µs	+5.11%
idents_at_position	122.9±0.31µs	122.5±0.44µs	-0.33%
inlay_hints	663.4±49.25µs	666.5±57.70µs	+0.47%
on_enter	483.1±18.23ns	492.3±16.76ns	+1.90%
parent_decl_at_position	3.6±0.05ms	3.6±0.04ms	0.00%
prepare_rename	361.1±7.80µs	364.0±6.30µs	+0.80%
rename	9.3±0.21ms	9.1±0.17ms	-2.15%
semantic_tokens	1068.7±11.98µs	1066.1±92.80µs	-0.24%
token_at_position	360.8±2.12µs	356.5±4.92µs	-1.19%
tokens_at_position	3.6±0.16ms	3.6±0.07ms	0.00%
tokens_for_file	410.3±6.43µs	416.7±1.54µs	+1.56%
traverse	38.5±0.90ms	37.8±0.82ms	-1.82%

github-actions · 2024-02-19T12:45:56Z

Benchmark for `c4c70fe`

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
code_action	5.2±0.13ms	5.2±0.11ms	0.00%
code_lens	285.7±8.32ns	288.8±19.54ns	+1.09%
compile	3.0±0.03s	3.8±0.08s	+26.67%
completion	5.1±0.19ms	4.9±0.16ms	-3.92%
did_change_with_caching	2.9±0.04s	3.5±0.09s	+20.69%
document_symbol	960.1±32.21µs	967.8±14.19µs	+0.80%
format	72.2±0.70ms	73.4±2.23ms	+1.66%
goto_definition	367.7±15.20µs	372.6±7.01µs	+1.33%
highlight	8.8±0.16ms	8.8±0.07ms	0.00%
hover	532.9±5.65µs	598.2±26.49µs	+12.25%
idents_at_position	122.6±0.44µs	125.4±1.30µs	+2.28%
inlay_hints	655.4±27.44µs	663.9±25.44µs	+1.30%
on_enter	476.2±19.12ns	499.0±14.14ns	+4.79%
parent_decl_at_position	3.6±0.04ms	3.7±0.26ms	+2.78%
prepare_rename	361.5±3.86µs	370.9±3.89µs	+2.60%
rename	9.3±0.22ms	9.2±0.18ms	-1.08%
semantic_tokens	1055.3±19.77µs	1076.7±16.55µs	+2.03%
token_at_position	360.1±1.94µs	365.7±3.26µs	+1.56%
tokens_at_position	3.6±0.05ms	3.6±0.07ms	0.00%
tokens_for_file	411.3±4.69µs	418.2±4.09µs	+1.68%
traverse	38.9±1.17ms	39.5±0.73ms	+1.54%

github-actions · 2024-02-20T11:31:54Z

Benchmark for `ff5bdb7`

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
code_action	5.1±0.03ms	5.4±0.10ms	+5.88%
code_lens	286.1±9.14ns	335.8±11.66ns	+17.37%
compile	3.0±0.06s	3.7±0.03s	+23.33%
completion	4.8±0.18ms	5.0±0.12ms	+4.17%
did_change_with_caching	3.1±0.04s	3.5±0.04s	+12.90%
document_symbol	1036.9±34.72µs	963.0±16.97µs	-7.13%
format	75.5±0.82ms	75.0±0.93ms	-0.66%
goto_definition	379.8±6.16µs	373.1±7.33µs	-1.76%
highlight	8.9±0.22ms	9.3±0.19ms	+4.49%
hover	547.2±7.15µs	584.9±14.49µs	+6.89%
idents_at_position	122.3±1.05µs	124.0±1.32µs	+1.39%
inlay_hints	662.2±24.63µs	671.7±7.19µs	+1.43%
on_enter	494.7±13.62ns	473.4±19.71ns	-4.31%
parent_decl_at_position	3.6±0.06ms	3.7±0.07ms	+2.78%
prepare_rename	377.4±12.36µs	370.3±6.66µs	-1.88%
rename	9.1±0.05ms	9.6±0.14ms	+5.49%
semantic_tokens	1043.1±40.91µs	1050.4±20.04µs	+0.70%
token_at_position	369.7±3.70µs	364.1±3.29µs	-1.51%
tokens_at_position	3.6±0.02ms	3.7±0.04ms	+2.78%
tokens_for_file	415.4±2.91µs	411.7±2.59µs	-0.89%
traverse	38.9±0.59ms	38.9±0.96ms	0.00%

jjcnn

I found it easier to see what's going on by looking at each commit separately, and I'm done all the way through to the one called "clean tests".

I'll continue with the rest of the commits tomorrow.

sway-core/src/ir_generation/function.rs

sway-lib-core/src/codec.sw

sway-core/src/semantic_analysis/program.rs

jjcnn · 2024-02-27T17:02:22Z

I understand this example in principle, but there seems to be things missing:

let base_asset_id = BASE_ASSET_ID;
let other_contract_id = ContractId::from(0xa38576787f8900d66e6620548b6da8142b8bb4d129b2338609acd121ca126c10);

let test_contract = abi(ContextTesting, other_contract_id.into());
let returned_contract_id = test_contract.get_id { gas: gas, coins: 0, asset_id: BASE_ASSET_ID.value}(1, 2, 3);

[and] will be transformed to

let base_asset_id = BASE_ASSET_ID;
let other_contract_id = ContractId::from(0xa38576787f8900d66e6620548b6da8142b8bb4d129b2338609acd121ca126c10);

let test_contract = abi(ContextTesting, other_contract_id.into());
let returned_contract_id = contract_call::<ContractId, _>(other_contract_id.into(), "get_id", (1, 2, 3), coins, asset_id, gas);

Are gas and coins implicitly defined variables?

Is it necessary to defined base_asset_id instead of just using BASE_ASSET_ID in the contract call?

xunilrj · 2024-02-27T17:57:59Z

Are gas and coins implicitly defined variables?

No they are standard variables. Nothing special about them.

Is it necessary to defined base_asset_id instead of just using BASE_ASSET_ID in the contract call?

It is not necessary, but it is an option that we give when a contract call is made. See https://docs.fuel.network/docs/sway/sway-program-types/smart_contracts/#calling-a-smart-contract-from-a-script

You also have the option of specifying the following special parameters inside curly braces right before the main list of parameters:

gas: a u64 that represents the gas being forwarded to the contract when it is called.
coins: a u64 that represents how many coins are being forwarded with this call.
asset_id: a b256 that represents the ID of the asset type of the coins being forwarded.

jjcnn · 2024-02-28T15:42:15Z

Are gas and coins implicitly defined variables?

No they are standard variables. Nothing special about them.

So the examples are not self-contained, then? For instance, I see a variable gas which is not defined anywhere, and which is used to initialize the gas parameter to the contract call.

ironcev · 2024-02-28T15:59:56Z

So the examples are not self-contained

Exactly, they are more like code snippets.

ironcev

Congrats for putting all this together @xunilrj!!

I am still going through the PR and connecting the dots. The overall mechanics is already clear (contract.method() being desugared into contract_call that in the end calls the intrinsic) but I still didn't touch the part with the heavy code generation.

The comments posted in this review are IMO negligible compared to the overall complexity and importance of the PR and can be ignored for now if there are more pressing issues.

The only one that I think can lead to bugs is the not fully qualified name in the contract_call function application.

I'll proceed with the review.

sway-core/src/abi_generation/evm_abi.rs

sway-core/src/abi_generation/fuel_abi.rs

sway-core/src/asm_generation/fuel/compiler_constants.rs

sway-core/src/ir_generation/function.rs

test/src/e2e_vm_tests/test_programs/should_pass/language/main_args/main_args_empty/src/main.sw

sway-core/src/ir_generation/function.rs

sway-core/src/language/asm.rs

sway-core/src/language/parsed/expression/asm.rs

sway-core/src/language/parsed/expression/match_branch.rs

sway-core/src/semantic_analysis/ast_node/expression/typed_expression/method_application.rs

sway-core/src/decl_engine/associated_item_decl_id.rs

sway-core/src/decl_engine/engine.rs

sway-core/src/decl_engine/parsed_engine.rs

sway-core/src/ir_generation.rs

sway-core/src/ir_generation/compile.rs

sway-core/src/language/parsed/expression/mod.rs

sway-core/src/language/parsed/mod.rs

sway-core/src/language/ty/declaration/declaration.rs

ironcev · 2024-02-29T12:29:26Z

General remark. @tritao's concern about debug symbols and loosing span information when desugaring is valid, especially in this approach when we generate the code by compiling code snippets. It looks to me we will need something like #line directive for generated code.

ironcev · 2024-02-29T12:31:45Z

When I compile this simple predicate:

predicate;

fn main() -> bool {
   true
}

the compiler panics in aut_impl:

thread 'main' panicked at sway-core/src/semantic_analysis/ast_node/declaration/auto_impl.rs:679:9:
Handler { inner: RefCell { value: HandlerInner { errors: [SymbolNotFound { name: decode_script_data, span: Span { src (ptr): 0x55b8522472e0, source_id: None, start: 50, end: 68, as_str(): "decode_script_data" } }], warnings: [] } } } pub fn __entry() -> bool {
            let args = decode_script_data::<()>();
            main()
        }

sway-core/src/semantic_analysis/ast_node/declaration/auto_impl.rs

github-actions · 2024-03-01T11:59:23Z

Benchmark for `5b9eac1`

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
code_action	5.2±0.10ms	5.7±0.29ms	+9.62%
code_lens	295.8±7.09ns	300.4±7.64ns	+1.56%
compile	3.1±0.07s	3.3±0.06s	+6.45%
completion	5.3±0.27ms	5.1±0.41ms	-3.77%
did_change_with_caching	3.0±0.03s	3.3±0.05s	+10.00%
document_symbol	977.1±20.73µs	980.2±15.30µs	+0.32%
format	73.3±1.02ms	71.6±1.53ms	-2.32%
goto_definition	369.0±6.35µs	367.6±7.43µs	-0.38%
highlight	8.8±0.05ms	9.1±0.28ms	+3.41%
hover	547.2±13.29µs	544.0±8.71µs	-0.58%
idents_at_position	122.1±0.57µs	122.3±1.06µs	+0.16%
inlay_hints	659.0±28.01µs	678.6±10.76µs	+2.97%
on_enter	481.6±6.82ns	469.1±15.27ns	-2.60%
parent_decl_at_position	3.8±0.22ms	3.8±0.12ms	0.00%
prepare_rename	370.2±6.70µs	370.8±14.74µs	+0.16%
rename	9.1±0.15ms	10.1±0.21ms	+10.99%
semantic_tokens	1069.4±30.41µs	1050.3±7.57µs	-1.79%
token_at_position	367.6±2.98µs	370.3±3.49µs	+0.73%
tokens_at_position	3.9±0.27ms	3.9±0.27ms	0.00%
tokens_for_file	497.6±3.24µs	410.4±5.54µs	-17.52%
traverse	39.4±0.86ms	40.4±1.05ms	+2.54%

This PR solves a problem for #5427. When compiling the Rust SDK, the type below hangs the compiler inside`find_parent`. ```sway #[allow(dead_code)] struct MegaExample<T, U> { a: ([U; 2], T), b: Vec<([EnumWGeneric<StructWTupleGeneric<StructWArrayGeneric<PassTheGenericOn<T>>>>; 1], u32)>, } ``` Now, propagating when a change is made, not only the example compiles, but we should also be able to optimize compilation in general. In small benchmarks I made here, compiling the Rust SDK had a 2% improvement (from `0m8.404s` to `0m8.258s`). ## Checklist - [x] I have linked to any relevant issues. - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas. - [x] I have updated the documentation where relevant (API docs, the reference, and the Sway book). - [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works. - [x] I have added (or requested a maintainer to add) the necessary `Breaking*` or `New Feature` labels where relevant. - [x] I have done my best to ensure that my PR adheres to [the Fuel Labs Code Review Standards](https://github.com/FuelLabs/rfcs/blob/master/text/code-standards/external-contributors.md). - [x] I have requested a review from the relevant team or maintainers.

github-actions · 2024-03-04T16:11:12Z

Benchmark for `e0acdae`

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
code_action	5.1±0.13ms	5.5±0.14ms	+7.84%
code_lens	308.0±8.27ns	289.0±10.17ns	-6.17%
compile	4.2±0.06s	5.9±0.05s	+40.48%
completion	4.7±0.07ms	4.9±0.10ms	+4.26%
did_change_with_caching	3.7±0.12s	5.2±0.04s	+40.54%
document_symbol	1031.6±41.98µs	969.2±21.65µs	-6.05%
format	73.3±0.60ms	71.0±1.65ms	-3.14%
goto_definition	366.8±18.09µs	359.7±4.89µs	-1.94%
highlight	8.8±0.43ms	9.1±0.18ms	+3.41%
hover	540.4±8.30µs	590.3±10.91µs	+9.23%
idents_at_position	121.6±0.18µs	122.6±0.88µs	+0.82%
inlay_hints	649.6±23.76µs	671.2±27.77µs	+3.33%
on_enter	492.9±13.18ns	510.5±16.75ns	+3.57%
parent_decl_at_position	3.6±0.02ms	3.7±0.04ms	+2.78%
prepare_rename	364.0±6.51µs	361.5±8.58µs	-0.69%
rename	9.1±0.19ms	9.6±0.18ms	+5.49%
semantic_tokens	1049.1±39.51µs	1033.3±19.23µs	-1.51%
token_at_position	361.0±2.96µs	349.6±2.93µs	-3.16%
tokens_at_position	3.6±0.04ms	3.7±0.02ms	+2.78%
tokens_for_file	409.4±2.55µs	412.5±2.99µs	+0.76%
traverse	37.2±1.17ms	43.1±1.58ms	+15.86%

github-actions · 2024-03-04T20:27:09Z

Benchmark for `c4a74da`

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
code_action	5.1±0.07ms	5.5±0.15ms	+7.84%
code_lens	306.3±7.60ns	290.5±11.96ns	-5.16%
compile	4.4±0.12s	5.9±0.07s	+34.09%
completion	4.7±0.06ms	5.0±0.15ms	+6.38%
did_change_with_caching	3.8±0.07s	5.5±0.12s	+44.74%
document_symbol	944.2±6.67µs	969.2±14.64µs	+2.65%
format	73.4±1.26ms	69.9±1.74ms	-4.77%
goto_definition	358.0±8.67µs	357.4±4.12µs	-0.17%
highlight	8.7±0.04ms	9.2±0.26ms	+5.75%
hover	530.5±6.76µs	619.0±21.86µs	+16.68%
idents_at_position	121.4±0.38µs	121.7±1.00µs	+0.25%
inlay_hints	644.1±28.77µs	661.4±23.00µs	+2.69%
on_enter	489.7±31.94ns	504.9±16.25ns	+3.10%
parent_decl_at_position	3.6±0.07ms	3.7±0.03ms	+2.78%
prepare_rename	358.4±7.22µs	364.3±5.78µs	+1.65%
rename	9.2±0.16ms	9.7±0.32ms	+5.43%
semantic_tokens	1022.1±16.84µs	1042.8±27.66µs	+2.03%
token_at_position	355.5±1.95µs	357.4±3.25µs	+0.53%
tokens_at_position	3.6±0.06ms	3.7±0.05ms	+2.78%
tokens_for_file	449.0±1.72µs	416.3±13.82µs	-7.28%
traverse	38.5±0.92ms	43.7±1.26ms	+13.51%

github-actions · 2024-03-05T06:41:57Z

Benchmark for `900a91e`

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
code_action	5.4±0.08ms	5.4±0.03ms	0.00%
code_lens	292.4±11.19ns	290.4±6.92ns	-0.68%
compile	4.6±0.17s	5.7±0.11s	+23.91%
completion	4.9±0.35ms	4.9±0.19ms	0.00%
did_change_with_caching	3.7±0.11s	5.1±0.04s	+37.84%
document_symbol	953.6±16.17µs	954.0±23.82µs	+0.04%
format	73.3±1.00ms	69.4±0.91ms	-5.32%
goto_definition	366.3±6.51µs	361.7±7.07µs	-1.26%
highlight	9.0±0.05ms	9.1±0.15ms	+1.11%
hover	531.7±6.01µs	587.3±8.30µs	+10.46%
idents_at_position	121.6±0.22µs	122.0±2.03µs	+0.33%
inlay_hints	662.0±22.33µs	672.4±22.50µs	+1.57%
on_enter	488.6±14.05ns	490.4±14.65ns	+0.37%
parent_decl_at_position	3.7±0.02ms	3.7±0.06ms	0.00%
prepare_rename	367.1±6.35µs	361.4±4.45µs	-1.55%
rename	9.4±0.06ms	9.5±0.03ms	+1.06%
semantic_tokens	1043.2±21.22µs	1053.0±12.19µs	+0.94%
token_at_position	358.6±3.54µs	354.3±1.87µs	-1.20%
tokens_at_position	3.7±0.03ms	3.7±0.03ms	0.00%
tokens_for_file	411.9±6.21µs	409.8±2.50µs	-0.51%
traverse	37.5±1.11ms	42.7±1.39ms	+13.87%

github-actions · 2024-03-05T08:06:47Z

Benchmark for `1fd53d4`

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
code_action	5.3±0.19ms	5.5±0.23ms	+3.77%
code_lens	299.5±16.58ns	290.5±11.09ns	-3.01%
compile	4.3±0.13s	5.8±0.05s	+34.88%
completion	4.8±0.15ms	4.9±0.05ms	+2.08%
did_change_with_caching	3.8±0.11s	5.2±0.04s	+36.84%
document_symbol	964.0±19.48µs	1011.0±11.81µs	+4.88%
format	73.7±0.82ms	70.7±3.11ms	-4.07%
goto_definition	367.8±9.09µs	367.5±6.55µs	-0.08%
highlight	9.0±0.03ms	9.1±0.05ms	+1.11%
hover	546.4±8.79µs	674.6±15.91µs	+23.46%
idents_at_position	122.5±0.68µs	123.3±0.63µs	+0.65%
inlay_hints	665.1±16.33µs	671.6±11.90µs	+0.98%
on_enter	486.8±16.56ns	491.0±17.38ns	+0.86%
parent_decl_at_position	3.7±0.08ms	3.7±0.03ms	0.00%
prepare_rename	365.4±6.72µs	364.7±5.80µs	-0.19%
rename	9.4±0.14ms	9.5±0.04ms	+1.06%
semantic_tokens	1053.4±30.97µs	1056.1±20.37µs	+0.26%
token_at_position	366.0±4.15µs	360.4±2.08µs	-1.53%
tokens_at_position	3.7±0.02ms	3.7±0.02ms	0.00%
tokens_for_file	414.6±2.94µs	413.5±1.71µs	-0.27%
traverse	37.9±1.18ms	43.9±1.95ms	+15.83%

github-actions · 2024-03-06T14:11:46Z

Benchmark for `ab66cd8`

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
code_action	5.7±0.18ms	5.5±0.09ms	-3.51%
code_lens	288.9±9.88ns	302.7±15.52ns	+4.78%
compile	4.7±0.12s	5.9±0.07s	+25.53%
completion	5.7±0.46ms	5.0±0.12ms	-12.28%
did_change_with_caching	3.9±0.07s	5.8±0.09s	+48.72%
document_symbol	1049.9±22.60µs	1031.9±22.78µs	-1.71%
format	75.3±0.68ms	69.5±1.02ms	-7.70%
goto_definition	361.6±7.10µs	381.0±16.27µs	+5.37%
highlight	9.8±0.30ms	9.2±0.15ms	-6.12%
hover	541.3±12.48µs	607.4±15.46µs	+12.21%
idents_at_position	121.9±0.35µs	123.7±0.99µs	+1.48%
inlay_hints	684.8±16.99µs	680.0±13.71µs	-0.70%
on_enter	479.0±18.10ns	492.2±12.81ns	+2.76%
parent_decl_at_position	4.5±0.13ms	3.7±0.04ms	-17.78%
prepare_rename	356.9±7.70µs	376.8±7.94µs	+5.58%
rename	10.0±0.12ms	9.6±0.14ms	-4.00%
semantic_tokens	1051.8±20.52µs	1071.0±9.51µs	+1.83%
token_at_position	350.9±1.44µs	369.4±3.34µs	+5.27%
tokens_at_position	4.4±0.15ms	3.7±0.03ms	-15.91%
tokens_for_file	419.3±3.16µs	417.9±3.66µs	-0.33%
traverse	39.8±1.30ms	46.5±1.61ms	+16.83%

github-actions · 2024-03-06T17:09:48Z

Benchmark for `3f74b03`

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
code_action	5.3±0.18ms	5.5±0.13ms	+3.77%
code_lens	286.8±8.79ns	287.4±9.40ns	+0.21%
compile	4.4±0.12s	6.0±0.08s	+36.36%
completion	5.0±0.11ms	5.2±0.16ms	+4.00%
did_change_with_caching	4.0±0.13s	5.5±0.04s	+37.50%
document_symbol	995.4±24.82µs	1051.4±52.48µs	+5.63%
format	74.0±0.94ms	70.6±1.18ms	-4.59%
goto_definition	367.9±10.50µs	375.0±6.55µs	+1.93%
highlight	9.1±0.15ms	9.2±0.17ms	+1.10%
hover	540.8±6.76µs	612.8±11.36µs	+13.31%
idents_at_position	122.1±0.64µs	121.7±0.98µs	-0.33%
inlay_hints	662.1±34.30µs	681.0±9.55µs	+2.85%
on_enter	487.3±13.82ns	486.7±12.78ns	-0.12%
parent_decl_at_position	3.7±0.05ms	3.8±0.04ms	+2.70%
prepare_rename	361.9±3.92µs	375.5±5.33µs	+3.76%
rename	9.5±0.25ms	9.9±0.07ms	+4.21%
semantic_tokens	1050.6±12.45µs	1039.1±21.66µs	-1.09%
token_at_position	360.6±1.98µs	365.1±19.96µs	+1.25%
tokens_at_position	3.7±0.02ms	3.8±0.04ms	+2.70%
tokens_for_file	416.1±2.74µs	412.9±12.40µs	-0.77%
traverse	39.2±0.84ms	44.5±2.03ms	+13.52%

github-actions · 2024-03-06T19:12:06Z

Benchmark for `58fe54e`

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
code_action	5.3±0.23ms	5.5±0.11ms	+3.77%
code_lens	287.3±15.30ns	288.5±9.64ns	+0.42%
compile	4.3±0.10s	5.8±0.10s	+34.88%
completion	4.9±0.16ms	5.0±0.07ms	+2.04%
did_change_with_caching	3.8±0.10s	5.3±0.06s	+39.47%
document_symbol	980.1±15.35µs	958.7±30.88µs	-2.18%
format	74.8±2.20ms	70.7±1.65ms	-5.48%
goto_definition	367.3±6.02µs	376.4±5.28µs	+2.48%
highlight	9.1±0.04ms	9.3±0.18ms	+2.20%
hover	545.5±19.05µs	597.3±21.40µs	+9.50%
idents_at_position	122.8±1.28µs	122.4±1.01µs	-0.33%
inlay_hints	727.9±22.87µs	673.7±54.09µs	-7.45%
on_enter	478.3±16.29ns	489.5±15.53ns	+2.34%
parent_decl_at_position	3.7±0.03ms	3.7±0.05ms	0.00%
prepare_rename	371.9±18.98µs	372.4±8.56µs	+0.13%
rename	9.5±0.29ms	9.7±0.21ms	+2.11%
semantic_tokens	1077.9±38.43µs	1056.0±7.32µs	-2.03%
token_at_position	359.3±2.92µs	367.5±3.26µs	+2.28%
tokens_at_position	3.7±0.05ms	3.7±0.03ms	0.00%
tokens_for_file	428.8±5.62µs	411.5±2.44µs	-4.03%
traverse	37.8±1.03ms	44.9±2.39ms	+18.78%

## Description This fixes a bug introduced by #5427, where the ABI was exporting the "__entry" function instead of the "main". When parsing and type checking I now mark function as "main" an only later decide if the compilation will call the main or the entry. I also moved the `is_entrypoint` method from the `TyAstNode` to the DCE pass, because it is super specific to that pass. ## Checklist - [x] I have linked to any relevant issues. - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas. - [x] I have updated the documentation where relevant (API docs, the reference, and the Sway book). - [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works. - [x] I have added (or requested a maintainer to add) the necessary `Breaking*` or `New Feature` labels where relevant. - [x] I have done my best to ensure that my PR adheres to [the Fuel Labs Code Review Standards](https://github.com/FuelLabs/rfcs/blob/master/text/code-standards/external-contributors.md). - [x] I have requested a review from the relevant team or maintainers.

IGI-111 assigned xunilrj Jan 7, 2024

xunilrj force-pushed the xunilrj/encoding-contract-call branch from 8e2fb13 to 9ecc867 Compare January 15, 2024 12:48

xunilrj force-pushed the xunilrj/encoding-contract-call branch from 9bf7f45 to 3d3ed89 Compare January 23, 2024 12:29

xunilrj force-pushed the xunilrj/encoding-contract-call branch from 70cd848 to ca811df Compare February 7, 2024 11:55

xunilrj force-pushed the xunilrj/encoding-contract-call branch from 07cbcef to 61f19de Compare February 15, 2024 20:37

This comment was marked as spam.

Sign in to view

jjcnn reviewed Feb 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

sway-core/src/ir_generation/function.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

sway-lib-core/src/codec.sw Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

sway-core/src/semantic_analysis/program.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

xunilrj mentioned this pull request Feb 28, 2024

Problem replacing dummy trait methods #5673

Closed

ironcev reviewed Feb 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

ironcev reviewed Feb 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

sway-core/src/semantic_analysis/ast_node/declaration/auto_impl.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

sway-core/src/semantic_analysis/ast_node/declaration/auto_impl.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

xunilrj mentioned this pull request Feb 29, 2024

Make replace_decls to know when a change was introduced #5677

Merged

7 tasks

xunilrj force-pushed the xunilrj/encoding-contract-call branch from 482415a to 41a3aeb Compare March 1, 2024 11:36

xunilrj force-pushed the xunilrj/encoding-contract-call branch from 287d8e8 to d201a36 Compare March 4, 2024 15:45

xunilrj marked this pull request as ready for review March 5, 2024 09:40

xunilrj added 14 commits March 6, 2024 13:45

fmt and clippy issues

411eac1

code generation for tuple abi_decode impl

a215e41

removing warning from generated code

b0534ef

adjusting contract tests to work with the new encoding

c2836ef

fmt and clippy issues

4678a46

rebasgin and removing old intrinsics

34f5dc1

fixing main_args tests

c1149c0

update contract ids

482307a

fix doc tests

90a8d47

fmt core and std

893ba4d

contract call IR name as optional

07c9922

addressing PR comments

c6c697d

fmt and clippy issues

12aadeb

removing some leftovers

6ddf142

xunilrj dismissed ironcev’s stale review via 6ddf142 March 6, 2024 13:46

xunilrj force-pushed the xunilrj/encoding-contract-call branch from 4814c96 to 6ddf142 Compare March 6, 2024 13:46

fmt and clippy issues

632b32e

dont print the ast on tests

489df5f

IGI-111 requested a review from ironcev March 6, 2024 19:51

IGI-111 approved these changes Mar 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

ironcev approved these changes Mar 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

xunilrj merged commit c24d731 into master Mar 6, 2024
35 checks passed

xunilrj deleted the xunilrj/encoding-contract-call branch March 6, 2024 21:33

hal3e restored the xunilrj/encoding-contract-call branch March 7, 2024 11:46

xunilrj mentioned this pull request Mar 7, 2024

Correctly export the main fn in the json abi #5707

Merged

7 tasks

hal3e deleted the xunilrj/encoding-contract-call branch March 8, 2024 08:03

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

New encoding for contract calls #5427

New encoding for contract calls #5427

xunilrj commented Jan 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Feb 15, 2024

github-actions bot commented Feb 19, 2024

This comment was marked as spam.

github-actions bot commented Feb 20, 2024

jjcnn left a comment

jjcnn commented Feb 27, 2024 •

edited

Loading

xunilrj commented Feb 27, 2024

jjcnn commented Feb 28, 2024

ironcev commented Feb 28, 2024

ironcev left a comment

ironcev commented Feb 29, 2024

ironcev commented Feb 29, 2024

github-actions bot commented Mar 1, 2024

github-actions bot commented Mar 4, 2024

github-actions bot commented Mar 4, 2024

github-actions bot commented Mar 5, 2024

github-actions bot commented Mar 5, 2024

github-actions bot commented Mar 6, 2024

github-actions bot commented Mar 6, 2024

github-actions bot commented Mar 6, 2024

New encoding for contract calls #5427

New encoding for contract calls #5427

Conversation

xunilrj commented Jan 2, 2024 • edited Loading

Description

Contract Calls

Contracts

Scripts and Predicates

Tests

Checklist

github-actions bot commented Feb 15, 2024

Benchmark for 1ddb756

github-actions bot commented Feb 19, 2024

Benchmark for c4c70fe

This comment was marked as spam.

github-actions bot commented Feb 20, 2024

Benchmark for ff5bdb7

jjcnn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jjcnn commented Feb 27, 2024 • edited Loading

xunilrj commented Feb 27, 2024

jjcnn commented Feb 28, 2024

ironcev commented Feb 28, 2024

ironcev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ironcev commented Feb 29, 2024

ironcev commented Feb 29, 2024

github-actions bot commented Mar 1, 2024

Benchmark for 5b9eac1

github-actions bot commented Mar 4, 2024

Benchmark for e0acdae

github-actions bot commented Mar 4, 2024

Benchmark for c4a74da

github-actions bot commented Mar 5, 2024

Benchmark for 900a91e

github-actions bot commented Mar 5, 2024

Benchmark for 1fd53d4

github-actions bot commented Mar 6, 2024

Benchmark for ab66cd8

github-actions bot commented Mar 6, 2024

Benchmark for 3f74b03

github-actions bot commented Mar 6, 2024

Benchmark for 58fe54e

xunilrj commented Jan 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Benchmark for `1ddb756`

Benchmark for `c4c70fe`

Benchmark for `ff5bdb7`

jjcnn commented Feb 27, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Benchmark for `5b9eac1`

Benchmark for `e0acdae`

Benchmark for `c4a74da`

Benchmark for `900a91e`

Benchmark for `1fd53d4`

Benchmark for `ab66cd8`

Benchmark for `3f74b03`

Benchmark for `58fe54e`