Closed LindaGuiga closed 1 week ago
Do we need a regression test or better test coverage on the pruned context?
@Nashtare mentioned we should keep your fix @sai-deng to make sure things don't actually fail even if we forgot some test cases.
Do we need a regression test or better test coverage on the pruned context? In my opinion, keeping your fix should be enough, since pruning is "just" an optimization, and we can detect any issues by logging a warning if the memory_after length is not 0 when it should be. What do you think @sai-deng?
@Nashtare mentioned we should keep your fix @sai-deng to make sure things don't actually fail even if we forgot some test cases.
Do we need a regression test or better test coverage on the pruned context? In my opinion, keeping your fix should be enough, since pruning is "just" an optimization, and we can detect any issues by logging a warning if the memory_after length is not 0 when it should be. What do you think @sai-deng?
LGTM. We can log a warning if is_last_segment && final_len != 0
.
FYI, ran the 6555 test blocks over night and no failure (and no single WARN message of non-empty table, so that's encouraging).
In
sys_call
s andcreate_common
,create_context
is called (and some values are set) before actually entering the new context. But betweencreate_context
andenter_new_ctx
, some exceptions might arise, and the new context is therefore not pruned when it should. This PR aims at fixing this issue. It also reverts #738, since the changes should no longer be necessary after this fix.Block 1033 was failing (with a wire set twice) without #738, but passes fine with this PR's changes.