feat(evm): update bytecode for v2.1.0 #1324
Conversation
fish-sammy
requested review from
cgorenflo,
jcs47 and
haiyizxx
as code owners
fish-sammy
force-pushed
the
feat/update-bytecode-v2.1.0
branch
from
a813629
to
ece0489
Compare
fish-sammy
added
enhancement
| @@ -72,15 +72,15 @@ const ( | |||
| } | |||
| ]` | |||
| AxelarGatewayCommandMintToken = "mintToken" | |||
| mintTokenMaxGasCost = 200000 | |||
| mintTokenMaxGasCost = 150000 | |||
| AxelarGatewayCommandBurnToken = "burnToken" | ||
| burnTokenMaxGasCost = 200000 | ||
| burnTokenMaxGasCost = 400000 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is burn so much more expensive now?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see, can we be smarter about it then? Have two constants, one for external erc20 burn and one for our wrapped ones. And depending on the command, the appropriate one is added. We're filling up our batches fairly often already, and by doubling the burn cost for our wrapped tokens too, we'll be much less efficient. Avalanche, where we have most throughput rn, has had pretty high variable gas costs recently ($10-50 per batch).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes but I'd rather save that for later and fix it separately. External tokens also affect other commands like deployToken and mintToken.
| @@ -72,15 +72,15 @@ const ( | |||
| } | |||
| ]` | |||
| AxelarGatewayCommandMintToken = "mintToken" | |||
| mintTokenMaxGasCost = 200000 | |||
| mintTokenMaxGasCost = 150000 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mints seem to only cost 80000 rn. I would imagine it should be cheaper with the optimizations? Should we keep it more around 120k?
And I guess in the worst case, we can still retry a batch with a higher gas limit?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"rn" is irrelevant. these numbers are from the latest version.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My point was that it seemed like we optimized gas costs quite a bit, so if "rn" (mainnet version) it's 80000, I'd imagine it'll be even lower in the latest version, so just surprised by that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Optimizations were applied to the new version which carries a lot of new features. It's never expected to be better than the previous version but better than a non-optimized latest version.
fish-sammy
force-pushed
the
feat/update-bytecode-v2.1.0
branch
from
fd3ddf6
to
2da5bb4
Compare
fish-sammy
force-pushed
the
feat/update-bytecode-v2.1.0
branch
from
2da5bb4
to
0be49f4
Compare
Description
Todos
Steps to Test
Expected Behaviour
Other Notes