feat: EIP-7742 #1600
feat: EIP-7742 #1600
Conversation
klkvr
requested review from
DaniPopes,
gakonst,
mattsse,
onbjerg and
emhane
as code owners
klkvr
force-pushed
the
klkvr/eip7742
branch
2 times, most recently
from
55ac6ae to
b283c74
Compare
| /// Similar to [crate::eip4844::calc_excess_blob_gas], but derives the target blob gas from | ||
| /// `parent_target_blob_count`. | ||
| #[inline] | ||
| pub const fn calc_excess_blob_gas( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm a bit concerned that this will be easy to misuse if the functions have the same name, but since this takes an additional param this is okay imo
There was a problem hiding this comment.
those are now completely identical :/ EIP-7742 just expects a normalized excess gas
should we rename the new one?
|
pushed latest changes as per ethereum/EIPs#9047 in db75ee4 |
| /// Note: this function will return incorrect (unnormalized, lower) value at EIP-7742 activation | ||
| /// block. If this is undesired, consider using [`eip7742::calc_excess_blob_gas_at_transition`]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this should be OK as I'd expect all consumers of this to not know whether the next block activates 7742 unless it's an EL
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does this mean we need a special check for the transition block in reth?
| /// Note: this function will return incorrect (unnormalized, lower) value at EIP-7742 activation | ||
| /// block. If this is undesired, consider using [`eip7742::calc_excess_blob_gas_at_transition`]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does this mean we need a special check for the transition block in reth?
Motivation
https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-7742.md
ethereum/execution-apis#574
ethereum/EIPs#8994
PayloadAttributeswithtarget_blobs_per_blockandmax_blobs_per_block.Some PRs are not merged and field names are different per different specs for now, but besides that this should be complete
Solution
PR Checklist