-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 954
New issue
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
[Safe 1.5.0] Evaluate Posibility of moving checkSignatures(bytes32, bytes, bytes)
into Safe
#707
Comments
I think we removed everything that could be removed. I don't think it's possible. Is it a significant overhead for the consumers to update to the new method? |
I have some tiny ideas that might add up to something meaningful: Use Generally speaking, there are a few instances of We have some array accesses that I think generate Solidity bounds checks, but aren’t needed. For example: Some view methods can move to the At an extreme, even the Anyway - don’t know if we should do it or not, we just might be able to squeeze it in if we try really hard.
It is just annoying for modules like the 4337 one, where we would need to keep a v1.4.1 version and a v1.5.0 version (or pay the additional gas of going over the fallback handler). |
I tried moving the Change made in
Updated size (using
I checked these changes on the last commit (using
|
Context / issue
Currently, the old
checkSignatures(bytes32, bytes, bytes)
function was moved to the fallback handler. It would be nice to keep it in theSafe
contract for gas reasons, but we are running into code size limits. Evaluate if it is possible to save small amounts of code to make this possible.Additional context
#687
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: