We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
At hardhat we've so far been using ethereumjs, but we're rewriting parts to Rust and are using revm to do so.
ethereumjs
revm
One of the features that ethereumjs supports but is absent in revm is the ability to skip the validation for Return::CallerGasLimitMoreThenBlock: https://github.com/bluealloy/revm/blob/main/crates/revm/src/evm_impl.rs#L69.
Return::CallerGasLimitMoreThenBlock
In ethereumjs this is handled by providing config options for running a transaction: https://github.com/ethereumjs/ethereumjs-monorepo/blob/master/packages/vm/src/types.ts#L306
Is this something that you'd be willing to accept a PR for? If so, do you have a preference for how it should be implemented?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Can be done similar to this: #235 (comment)
Just curious, wouldn't increasing block.gas_limit or making tx.gas_limit same as block.gas_limit solve this?
block.gas_limit
tx.gas_limit
Sorry, something went wrong.
This is the motivation for having an override: ethereumjs/ethereumjs-monorepo#1014
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
At hardhat we've so far been using
ethereumjs
, but we're rewriting parts to Rust and are usingrevm
to do so.One of the features that
ethereumjs
supports but is absent inrevm
is the ability to skip the validation forReturn::CallerGasLimitMoreThenBlock
: https://github.com/bluealloy/revm/blob/main/crates/revm/src/evm_impl.rs#L69.In
ethereumjs
this is handled by providing config options for running a transaction: https://github.com/ethereumjs/ethereumjs-monorepo/blob/master/packages/vm/src/types.ts#L306Is this something that you'd be willing to accept a PR for? If so, do you have a preference for how it should be implemented?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: