Skip to content

fix(core/vm): make all opcodes proper type #30925#2290

Open
gzliudan wants to merge 1 commit intoXinFinOrg:dev-upgradefrom
gzliudan:opcode-type
Open

fix(core/vm): make all opcodes proper type #30925#2290
gzliudan wants to merge 1 commit intoXinFinOrg:dev-upgradefrom
gzliudan:opcode-type

Conversation

@gzliudan
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@gzliudan gzliudan commented Apr 8, 2026

Proposed changes

Noticed this omission while doing some work on goevmlab. We don't properly type some of the opcodes, but apparently implicit casting works in all the internal usecases.

Ref: ethereum#30925

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce to XDC network?
Put an in the boxes that apply

  • build: Changes that affect the build system or external dependencies
  • ci: Changes to CI configuration files and scripts
  • chore: Changes that don't change source code or tests
  • docs: Documentation only changes
  • feat: A new feature
  • fix: A bug fix
  • perf: A code change that improves performance
  • refactor: A code change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature
  • revert: Revert something
  • style: Changes that do not affect the meaning of the code
  • test: Adding missing tests or correcting existing tests

Impacted Components

Which parts of the codebase does this PR touch?
Put an in the boxes that apply

  • Consensus
  • Account
  • Network
  • Geth
  • Smart Contract
  • External components
  • Not sure (Please specify below)

Checklist

Put an in the boxes once you have confirmed below actions (or provide reasons on not doing so) that

  • This PR has sufficient test coverage (unit/integration test) OR I have provided reason in the PR description for not having test coverage
  • Tested on a private network from the genesis block and monitored the chain operating correctly for multiple epochs.
  • Provide an end-to-end test plan in the PR description on how to manually test it on the devnet/testnet.
  • Tested the backwards compatibility.
  • Tested with XDC nodes running this version co-exist with those running the previous version.
  • Relevant documentation has been updated as part of this PR
  • N/A

Noticed this omission while doing some work on goevmlab. We don't
properly type some of the opcodes, but apparently implicit casting works
in all the internal usecases.
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 8, 2026 10:58
@coderabbitai
Copy link
Copy Markdown

coderabbitai bot commented Apr 8, 2026

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: ae86369c-e7b8-4136-bbb0-4507533918e7

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

  • 🔍 Trigger review
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR corrects opcode constant typing in the EVM opcode definitions so DUP and SWAP opcode ranges are explicitly typed as vm.OpCode, aligning them with the rest of the opcode constants.

Changes:

  • Type DUP1 (and thus the entire DUP iota block) as OpCode.
  • Type SWAP1 (and thus the entire SWAP iota block) as OpCode.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants